查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 從「形式國有」到「功能公共」:2024年《土地法》第14條修正之法理與治理意涵=From "Formal Public Ownership" to "Functional Publicness": Legal and Governance Implications of Taiwan's 2024 Land Law Article 14 Amendment |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 劉皓仁; | 書刊名 | 中國行政評論 |
| 卷 期 | 31:4 2025.12[民114.12] |
| 頁 次 | 頁53-73 |
| 分類號 | 554.1 |
| 關鍵詞 | 土地法; 行政程序法; 行政裁量; 比例原則; 公共性; 文化資產保存法; Land Law; Administrative Procedure Act; Administrative discretion; Principle of proportionality; Public interest; Cultural Heritage Preservation Act; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| DOI | 10.6635/cpar.202512_31(4).0003 |
| 中文摘要 | 2024年7月《土地法》第14條之修正,首次鬆動「古蹟坐落之公有土地不得移轉為私有」的絕對限制,改採附條件開放模式,允許經文化主管機關審查後,由公營事業機構或行政法人取得古蹟土地所有權。此舉旨在回應長期存在的「管用不合一」困境,即古蹟建築物由特定公法人管理使用,而其土地卻歸屬國家或地方政府,導致產權分離與管理責任不明,進而削弱保存與活化效能。修法的制度設計,透過將所有權與使用管理權統合於具公共任務屬性的主體之手,企圖兼顧文化資產保存與國有財產管理的法理需求。從法制面觀察,此一變革不僅調整了土地法上「公有-私有」的界線,也重塑了公私法秩序的分際;亦使土地法與文化資產保存法之間的規範目的趨於一致,減少過往規範間的矛盾與灰色地帶。本文以「土地法理論」(Land Law Theory)為分析基礎,結合財產權公法化理論、功能性公共性理論與比例原則三項法理,以檢視修法中「公有-私有」界線的再界定。前者揭示土地雖具財產性,仍應受公共利益之拘束;後者主張公共性可透過制度化程序與監督而非僅形式國有達成;比例原則則提供在公共性與效率之間權衡的法理工具。本文研究發現認為,該修法代表臺灣由「形式國有」轉向「功能公共」的制度轉型。透過建立「價格機制-用途限制-履約監測」三道把關與契約化治理架構,修法將公共性具體化為可驗證與可問責的法律義務,強化了文化資產保存效率與治理問責性。同時,研究亦揭示效率提升與公共性維護間的張力,強調資訊公開與社會參與為確保公共性持續性的關鍵。 |
| 英文摘要 | In July 2024, Article 14 of the Land Law was amended, for the first time lifting the absolute restriction that "public land on which monuments are located cannot be transferred to private ownership" and replacing it with a conditional opening model that allows public utilities or administrative legal entities to acquire the ownership of such monuments after examination by the cultural authority. This amendment responds to the long-standing dilemma of "incompatible management and use," whereby monuments and buildings are managed and used by a specific public legal entity while the land is owned by the state or local government, resulting in the separation of property rights and unclear management responsibilities, which in turn undermines the effectiveness of preservation and revitalization. The institutional design of the amendment attempts to address the legal requirements of cultural asset preservation and state property management by unifying ownership and management rights under a single entity with a public mandate. From the perspective of the legal system, this change not only adjusts the boundary between "public and private" in land law but also reshapes the public-private legal order. It aligns the regulatory purposes of the Land Law and the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, thereby reducing contradictions and gray areas between the previous regulations. This paper takes "Land Law Theory" as the analytical foundation and integrates three legal theories-namely, the theory of the public legalisation of property rights, the theory of functional publicity, and the principle of proportionality-to examine the redefinition of the boundary between the public and private spheres in the amended law. The first reveals that although land is a form of property, it should remain subject to public interest; the second suggests that publicity can be achieved through institutionalised procedures and supervision rather than formal state ownership; and the principle of proportionality provides a jurisprudential tool for balancing publicity and efficiency. The findings of this paper indicate that the amendment represents an institutional shift from "formal state ownership" to "functional publicness" in Taiwan. By establishing a three-pronged governance structure consisting of a price mechanism, use restrictions, and contractual monitoring, the amendment translates publicness into verifiable and accountable legal obligations and strengthens both the efficiency of cultural asset preservation and the accountability of governance. At the same time, the study also highlights the tension between efficiency enhancement and the maintenance of public character, emphasising that information disclosure and social participation are key to ensuring the sustainability of publicness. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。