公司在法律上為獨立之法律個體，惟公司業務之經營與執行，必須仰賴「公司機關」來行使。尤其是股份有限公司，由於規模通常較大，股東人數眾多，若公司之大小事務皆必須由全體股東來決定的話，公司之經營勢必無法進行。是以，各國立法例針對股份有限公司之內部機關之設計與權責，皆訂有詳細的規定。而股東會和董事會作為股份有限公司中兩個最重要的機關，其間的權限分配問題可說是公司法制設計上最基本且重要的問題之一。我國公司法第202條即規定除公司法或章程明文規定之應由股東會決議之事項外，均應由董事會決議行之，一般認為乃係因應所有與經營分離之潮流。 惟近年來公司弊案叢生，公司經營者利用職務之便，不顧公司股東及相關利害關係人之利益，圖利自身，使公司之經營發生危機，更甚而危及整個金融體系之安定。各國立法例開始積極檢討，傳統之權限分配規定是否已經不符合實際，進而產生了公司治理運動。公司治理之重要性亦在我國受到重視，其中期待股東積極參與以維護自身權益的「股東行動主義」更在近年來我國公司法之修正中得到落實。民國九十四年六月通過之公司法第172條之1，明文引進「股東提案權」，即為其一。另外，公司法第192條之1亦引進了董事候選人制度，其中賦予「股東提名權」。 然而，現代公司法制因應所有與經營分離所發展出的各種理論，在適用上是否有檢討的必要？現行法下股東會與董事會經營分配的規定，是否有修正之可能？甚且，上述強化股東權限之增訂，相對於公司法第202條，兩者似乎呈現了不同之趨勢。公司法第202條之規定是否和「股東提案權」和「股東提名權」所揭示的股東行動主義有所衝突及矛盾？以上種種問題，本文從公司內部機關之法制設計出發，探討股東會與董事會權限分配之立法例及相關問題，並探討股東提案權及股東提名權於我國現行公司法之架構之下，可能產生之相關問題。 從最根本的股東會與董事會權限分配，到系爭制度在實務運作上所產生之爭議，做進一步之釐清與分析。 第一章為「緒論」，分為研究動機及研究目的、研究範圍及研究方法及研究架構等三部分。主要係在介紹論文之基本理念與架構，使讀者能初步瞭解本論文之重點所在。 第二章為「股份有限公司內部機關之權限分配」。首先本文欲先介紹股份有限公司之內部機關，接著介紹公司內部之決策是如何形成，以股東會中心及董事會中心兩種模式為主軸。最後，就公司內部個別機關加以說明其權限分配。 第三章為「權限分配之外國立法例及相關爭議案例探討」。本文於此部分介紹在美國及日本法下公司內部機關之權限分配方式，並針對股東會及董事會權限分配部分所產生之相關爭議問題加以探討。 第四章為「我國股份有限公司之內部組織與權限分配」。本章將介紹我國股份有限公司之內部權限分配。首先說明個別機關之權限，接著就股東會及董事會權限分配之部分，對於公司法第202條修正後所產生的後續法律問題加以整理說明，並就現行法下需要修正的部分，嘗試提出本文見解。 第五章為「股東提案權及股東提名權」。本章將介紹股東提案權及股東提名權之規定。首先就公司治理運動談起，由其發展連結至股東行動主義在我國被實踐之結果。第三節和第四節則專論股東提案權及股東提名權之相關外國立法例及規定，並加以介紹我國規定及相關案例。第五節則就公司法第202條之修正與股東行動主義之引進可能產生之衝突及調和，嘗試提出評析及看法。 第六章為「結論」。

日本於明治時期，由於維新政府所奉行的神道國教化政策，而引發大規模的的佛教排斥破壞運動，史稱廢佛毀釋運動。事件的開端，起源於慶應四年(明治元年、一八六八)政府所頒布的「神佛分離令」。而政府之所以採用神佛分離政策，是因為在明治維新這個動盪的時期，政府的核心領導人物為了樹立以天皇為首之中央集權國家的政治體系，便採用有力的國學者、神道家之理論，來作為強調天皇其神聖的宗教威信、鞏固天皇的正統性及權威性之根據。 然而，當時如此雷厲風行的廢佛毀釋運動，使其衰退的是真宗信仰地區強烈的抵抗運動。而淨土真宗界的僧侶集結信徒發起護法一揆，起身反抗的原因，是出自於對廢佛行為的抗議、僧侶守護自身的生活權、農民對新政策的不了解，或是排擊基督教等因素。 本論文的第一、二章，將針對神佛分離‧廢佛毀釋運動之生成背景做探討。並說明從織豐政權到江戶幕府，權力者是如何打壓宗教勢力，以及論述相關宗教政策制定的意圖及內涵。此外，江戶時代排佛論興起，在此將試舉幾位代表性的排佛論者的論點加以闡述。再者，早在江戶時代，就有部份尊儒排佛的地方大名，積極的整頓領內的寺院神社，尤其以水戶、岡山、會津、長州最為興盛，因此將透過上述四個例子，來瞭解維新以前廢佛毀釋的實際狀況。在經過幕末的動盪時代，甫成立的維新政府在宗教方面，積極推動一連串神道國教化的政策。第三章將探討當時的各項政策，來說明各項政策所蘊含的意圖以及其帶來的影響。第四章的部份，將以真宗信仰繁盛的三個地區，在面對明治政府所施行的新政策時，所發起的護法一揆為例，來一窺其中所蘊含的群眾運動以及宗教運動的性格。 / In the Meiji era, because the Meiji government made Shinto a state religion, opposition and destruction of Buddhism occurred on a large scale in Japan, the so-called Anti-Buddhist Movement (Haibutsu Kishaku). It began in Keiō 4 (Meiji 1, 1868), the time the government announced the Ordinance Distinguishing Shinto and Buddhism. The government applied the separation of Shinto and Buddhism because in the chaotic period of the Meiji Restoration, to build a political system, a centralized government in which the emperor was the top, core leaders adopted authoritative Japanese classical (Kokugaku) scholars and Shinto scholars’ doctrines to enhance the emperor’s religious prestige, legitimacy and authority. As the fierce Anti-Buddhist Movement occurred, it was the strong opposition held by the Shin-Buddhists that weakened the Anti-Buddhist Movement. The Shin-Buddhist monks and followers staged religious revolts for protests against anti-Buddhism, monks’ claims on rights of living, peasants’ unfamiliarity with the new policy, strikes against Christians, etc. Chapter 1 and chapter 2 in this thesis are concerned with the background of the separation of Shinto and Buddhism and the Anti-Buddhist Movement, the illustrations of authorities’ oppression of religion from the Oda-Toyotomi period to the Edo period, and the demonstration of the purpose and the meaning of these religious policies. Besides, anti-Buddhism developed in the Edo period. Some representative anti-Buddhist scholars’ doctrines are examined here. In addition, in the Edo period, some chiho-daimyo who praised Confucianism and opposed Buddhism reorganized Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines in their domains actively, and this occurred very often in the Mito Domain, the Okayama Domain, the Aizu Domain and the Chōshū Domain. The above four cases are examined here to understand the real situation of the anti-Buddhism before the Meiji Restoration. After the chaotic last days of the Edo period (Bakumatsu), the new Meiji government adopted lots of policies to make Shinto a state religion. Chapter 3 is concerned with the analysis of each policy to demonstrate the purpose and the effect of each policy. Chapter 4 is concerned with the examination of religious revolts staged by people who lived in three places where the Shin-Buddhism was popular and faced new policies adopted by the Meiji government to analyze characteristics, mass movement and religious movement, of those religious revolts.

本研究主要探討電源供應器產業之突破式創新的可能性。透過文獻了解創新的涵意和學者對創新的分類，深入比較「維持性創新」（Sustaining Innovation）與其高階入侵（High-end encroachment），以及「突破式創新」（Disruptive Innovation）之三種低階入侵（Low-end encroachment）方式，分別為：即刻市場入侵（Immediate low-end encroachment）、邊緣市場入侵（Fringe-market low-end encroachment）、分離市場入侵（ Detached-market low-end encroachment）。 首先探究電源供應器之技術、產業現況、供應鏈結構及電源供應器的應用分類；將無線充電器歸類為新科技，針對無線充電技術的市場、聯盟、應用、未來機會做深入的剖析。為驗證無線充電技術之突破式創新的可能性分析，本研究採取學者Schmidt（2008）所提之「辨別創新的三步驟」進行突破性創新的驗證，以「無線方便性」與「充電速度」為關鍵指標。現有充電器的消費者比較重視「充電速度」，而新市場的消費者比較在意「無線方便性」，兩者的需求曲線不同，無線充電科技因提供與既有市場不同的新功能，所以被歸類為「低端突破式創新」之「分離市場」入侵。分離市場的消費者願意為無線的方便性付出較高的價格購買新產品。在新產品推出初期不會侵蝕主流市場的銷售，但經過一段時間，當價格下降及充電速度性能提升後，新產品會「低端突破」原有市場；到最後，新產品會往主流市場及高階市場擴散而影響既有產業和原來的市場結構。 本文藉由與產業專家的深入訪談得知目前既有企業對於新科技尚未開始準備，著實也驗證了Christensen（2005）提過主流企業常常因為過度著重現有技術，而忽略突破性科技的存在。最後，本文建議既有電源供應器產業應多留意突破性科技的入侵且適時跨入新科技，才能在突破性科技崛起時做好準備。 / The main purpose of this research is to examine the potential of disruptive innovation on the power supply industry. This article investigates the definitions and the classifications of innovation by various scholars. It identifies sustaining innovation with its high-end encroachment and disruptive innovation with its three approaches of low-end encroachment which are immediate, fringe-market, and detached-market. This article reviews the power supply industry and its technology, applications, market status, supply chains and then investigates the wireless charging industry and its technologies, evolutions, standards, and market opportunities. To identify the potential of wireless charging becoming disruptive technology, the article refers to the three-step framework of Schmidt (2008) to assess the potential diffusion pattern. The primary attribute of the incumbent is the charging time whereas the primary attribute of new technology is its wireless convenience. The results classify wireless charging as a low-end detached-market encroachment. The current and new products initially sell to the two opposite ends of the market and the highest willingness to pay for each market in the beginning are different, which are “detached “from one another. Over time, charging time would be expected to improve and cost would be expected to decrease, wireless chargers will be more favorable to high-end users of the wired chargers, and eventually current market will be encroached by the new technology. The interviews with incumbents present that current power supply firms have not initiated the development of wireless technology. Companies usually pursue sustaining innovations at the higher tiers of their markets because this is what has historically helped them succeed and they often missed the chances to disruptive innovation. (Christensen, 2005) The results suggest the established organizations to take more efforts to start looking into the disruptive technology so that established organizations will not be displaced by the new firms.

對於俄羅斯與烏克蘭而言，由於兩國之間長久以來極為密切的歷史與文化關係，因此始終難以接受蘇聯瓦解之事實。迄今，許多俄羅斯人依然視基輔為羅斯民族之出生地，且不認為烏克蘭是一個主權獨立的國家。更確切的說，俄羅斯人認為基輔羅斯乃是導引東正教與俄語進入俄國之發祥地。儘管俄烏之間具有不可割捨的兄弟之情，但當兩個民族或想像共同體對於其彼此疆界、文化等存有歧見時，則仍無法避免各種紛至沓來的紛爭問題。就克里米亞之黑海艦隊為例，顯示俄烏對於塞瓦斯托波爾城之想像共同體的重疊。同時，亦攸關俄烏兩國對於領土與心理疆界，產生必須且窘困的界定過程。 克里米亞半島素有黑海”鑰匙”之稱，不但是烏克蘭通往世界之大門，亦是各國經黑海進入東歐和亞洲的良港。由於其戰略位置之重要性，致使各種不同的政治勢必，紛紛介入克里米亞半島領土歸屬問題。蘇聯崩解後，克里米亞半島動盪不安的情勢，已造成黑海地區俄羅斯與烏克蘭雙邊關係之威脅，並儼然形成如同納戈爾諾－卡拉巴赫或阿布卡齊亞緊張衝突之溫床。克里米亞在蘇聯繼承國家之中，雖然尚不足以列入族裔衝突之範疇。但隨著反對國家之間領土紛爭的自決主張之聲浪，及自蘇聯時期懸而未決的軍事政治問題遺緒之情況下。致使克里米亞問題，成為俄烏兩國與國際緊張關係之焦點。 簡言之，克里米亞問題之根源在於其地區的人口分佈與地緣政治歷史。一九四四年，史達林以串通納粹敵國之罪名，將所有克里米亞韃靼人（約二十萬人）集體驅逐遷往中亞地區。截至一九八Ｏ年代末期，在近五十年漫長歲月中，克里米亞韃靼人不但其基本文化權及族群認同遭到否決，甚至於在蘇聯的人口統計資料中，未曾出現克里米亞韃靼人。蘇聯瓦解後，克里米亞始終受到兩方面重疊勢力的控制：其一、克里米亞共和國當局，與要求承認其歷史及領土權利的克里米亞韃靼人；其二、尋求獨立並要求回歸俄羅斯的克里米亞共和國親俄領導人士，及反對克里米亞分離主義之烏克蘭當局。這些勢力圍繞著一個相同的基本政治問題：誰擁有克里米亞半島之主權？就目前情勢而論，克里米亞韃靼積極份子要求承認其國家地位；然而，克里米亞境內及外在的敵對勢力，則頗不以為然。無庸置疑，歷史爭論與目前克里米亞的情勢發展，實乃息息相關。 / For Russians and Ukrainians, the disintegration of the Soviet Union has been particularly difficult due to the extremely close historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Many Russians still view Kyiv as the birthplace of their nation（Rus’）and do not conceive of Ukraine as an independent country. Rather, they think of it as Kievan Rus’, the land that brought the Orthodox Christian religion and the Russian language to Russia. As relations between Russia and Ukraine reveal, however, problems can arise when two imagined communities, or nations, disagree over the boundaries（cultural or otherwise） that distinguish them. In the case of the Black Sea Fleet dispute, the imagined communities of Russia and Ukraine overlap at Sevastopol. Throughout Crimea’s complicated history, the peninsula’s strategic location on the Black Sea has made it a desirable military outpost and warm-water port, leading to territorial claims by a great variety of political forces. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the unstable situation in Crimea has threatened to turn the Black Sea region of Russia and Ukraine into a hotbed of tension similar to Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia. While the Crimea still cannot be listed among the numerous areas of violent ethno-political conflict in the Soviet successor states, it has recently become a focus of domestic and international tension, with conflicting self-determination claims voiced against a background of interstate territorial disputes and an unsettled legacy of military-political issues from the Soviet period. Simply put, the conflict over Crimea has its roots in the region’s demographic and geopolitical history. In 1944, accused of collaboration with the Nazi invaders, the entire Crimean Tatar population（by then some 200,000） was deported, mostly to Central Asia. For over forty years, Crimean Tatars were denied basic cultural rights and even an ethic identity; until the 1980s, Crimean Tatars never appeared in Soviet population statistics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea has been the object of two overlapping rivalries for control: first between the Crimean Republic authorities and the Crimean Tatars, who demand recognition of their historic and territorial rights to the peninsula; and second between pro-Russian leaders of the Crimean Republic, who want either independence or reunification of the peninsula with Russia, and the Ukrainian authorities, who oppose Crimean separatism and insist that Crimea remain an integral part of Ukraine. These movements revolve around the same basic political question: who has sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula? Presently, Crimean Tatar activists regard the Crimean ASSR as a recognition of Crimean Tatar statehood, while their opponents in the Crimea and beyond are convinced that the autonomous formation was purely administrative. The historical controversy is, of course, highly relevant to the present situation in the Crimea.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(文学) / 乙第13308号 / 論文博第650号 / 新制||文||693(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院文学研究科行動文化学 / (主査)教授 太郎丸 博, 准教授 田中 紀行, 教授 岩井 八郎 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Letters / Kyoto University / DFAM

京都大学 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(文学) / 乙第13509号 / 論文博第666号 / 新制||文||725(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院文学研究科国史学専攻 / (主査)教授 上島 享, 准教授 三宅 正浩, 教授 谷川 穣 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Letters / Kyoto University / DGAM

在我國仍採行房地得為分離並得為分別交易之基本規制下，尋求我國民法中所有與控管房地分離有關之條文規範，加以統整並藉此歸納出該等規範之共同核心與立法意旨，乃勢在必行，如此始能覷見立法者現今之改革方向與立法理念，對於實務既有問題爭議之處理上方有一棲身之地，俾利吾人提出合理之解決模式。 條文規範中大體包括有事前手段與事後手段兩種規制，所稱事前手段，乃土地與其上建築物之一體化處分規範，以事先禁止土地與其上建築物分別為交易來防止後續產生房地分離之結果；所稱事後手段，乃指一旦土地與其上建築物為分別交易後，透過一些權利賦予之方式，例如優先購買權或土地利用權，來達到建築物仍得繼續存續於土地上，不致令建築物之附著於土地失其權源。而此二種規制，究其目的不外乎「房屋所有權與基地利用權一體化之體現」，惟此理念是否全然反映在我國之立法上，又是否有再加強之空間，即為本文所欲著墨之處，亦期能對我國關於房地之立法提供若干貢獻。 其次，我國實務上發生眾多「基地借貸」之案件，關於此一議題我國學說與實務難得聚焦而同為討論，相關文獻資料繁多，為解決此類案件提供相當多元之思考面向，本文亦參酌各家學說，於細細比較分析之後亦有若干研究心得之提出，希冀能提供我國法院於處理此類案件時有更多之觀點。

摘要 本篇論文的討論起點來自柏拉圖如何面對靈魂能夠認知真理的這個可能性。柏拉圖設立那與變動的感覺現象完全分離的「不變動的『相』」作為知識得以成立的條件，這個歷史緣由可從亞里士多德的記載當中知道：一方面，柏拉圖認同克拉梯樓斯與赫拉克利圖學派所主張的感覺現象的永遠流動、無一停留，並因此認為絕不可能有關於感覺現象的知識，然而，另一方面，那致力於倫理事物研究的蘇格拉底則堅持必定有那可被定義的知識對象得以被思考與認知；由於受到這兩方所堅持的信念，柏拉圖則在為了拯救現象並使思考與知識得以可能的情況下，他設立了那必須與變動的感覺現象完全分離的相來作為感覺現象之所以如此存在的原因，並在透過那分有相的感覺現象當中，靈魂得以思考並回憶起關於相的知識，而由此拯救現象並保全靈魂得以思考且獲得知識的可能性。 然而，柏拉圖的分離相論卻有可能引發諸多困難，這主要可由《巴曼尼德斯篇》裡的少年蘇格拉底所遭遇到的三個困境所表現出來：○1少年蘇格拉底對於是否有卑下者的相的存在，顯得猶疑不定；○2由於無法回答相與現象之間到底是如何分有，以致於分有成為不可能；○3更進一步地，正是由於相與現象彼此的完全分離，以致於原本肩負拯救現象這使命的相，到頭來卻反而根本無法拯救現象，而且也面臨無法為人所知的這個最大困境。 這三個困境其實正是柏拉圖真理之路---愛智者如何能擁有那與現象完全分離的相的知識？---所蘊含的兩個一體兩面的論題：第一，思考與知識的可能性如何成立？也就是，相如何拯救現象？第二，愛智者要以什麼樣的方法才能正確地獲得相的知識以成為真正的哲學家？關於第一個論題，筆者認為，柏拉圖在《巴曼尼德斯篇》第二部分的八組推論當中提出一種具有數特徵的存有論，這個存有論綿密、細緻地論說《蒂邁歐篇》裡的宇宙生成論以及「未成書研究」裡的原理論，在這當中，相拯救現象的可能性乃在於---神以其意願與叡智將相形塑於這個數存有的世界並因此使那些在場域裡生滅變化的現象獲得一致性，如此，神的意願（i.e.善）乃作為相得以拯救現象的最具統馭力的原因與原理；關於第二個論題，那能使少年蘇格拉底獲得真理以成為哲學家的訓練，正是那以合理論說所掌握的相為對象的訓練，筆者認為，柏拉圖在這個訓練當中，試圖透過假設法的運用，使得愛智者能緊守在對「是」（i.e.相）的追求上，並得以在一步步的往上探求當中，在最後能以最終的決定性原因---善---來束縛住所有的相，如此，當愛智者能在「善」的指導下以合理論說來正確地指出每個相的真實本質時，這個愛智者也就成為真正的哲學家。 在這樣的解決方式當中，柏拉圖證成了靈魂能夠認知真理的可能性，為自己的真理之路尋得一個合理的立足點。柏拉圖在這當中所奮力搏鬥的，主要並不是亞里士多德在《物理學以後諸篇》A 6.987a33-b10所提及的這些哲學家，而是歷史上的這位伊利亞哲學家---巴曼尼德斯：柏拉圖分離相論的核心來自巴曼尼德斯其毫無生滅變動的「完滿的是」，然而，柏拉圖拯救現象以及保全思考與知識的可能性的這個企圖，卻又是必須對巴曼尼德斯的「完滿的是」提出批判。而在柏拉圖藉由這兩個假設與八組推論來與巴曼尼德斯奮力搏鬥當中，柏拉圖所完成的不僅僅只是解決分離相論所可能引來的困境，而更是走上一條不同於巴曼尼德斯的真理之路，因為現象的拯救是柏拉圖所主要異於巴曼尼德斯的地方，而那使得現象得以被相所拯救的最具統馭力的原因與原理乃在於---宇宙父親的意願與叡智，而這乃作為柏拉圖自己的真理之路的最終磐石。 關鍵詞：相論，分離，分有，善，假設法，柏拉圖，巴曼尼德斯，〈未成書研究〉，《巴曼尼德斯篇》，《蒂邁歐篇》。 / Abstract The aim of this thesis is to show that how Plato might deal with the possibility for soul of knowing the truth. The historical reason for Plato positing the invariable Forms, which are totally apart from the variable sensible things, is remarked by Aristotle that: on the one hand, having been agreed with Cratylus and the Heracllitean doctrines that all sensible things are always in a state of flux and that no science of them exists, yet on the other hand, taking into account the Socrates’ efforts to find general definitions of ethical terms, Plato, having been inspired by both views, thinks that there must be some invariable things, i.e. Forms, which are totally apart from the variable sensible things and could only be thought with logos（or reasonable account）, as the causes of the sensible things. Therefore, the soul could recollect and think of Forms by perceiving these sensible things, which participate in the corresponding Forms. Hence, Plato saves the phenomena and secures the possibility for soul of thinking and knowing the truth by his theory of Forms. However, there might be many problems that arisen from Plato’s theory of Forms. These problems are shown mainly by the three perplexities, which are encountered by the young Socrates in the Parmenides. First, the young Socrates is undecided about whether the base things could have their Forms, second, having been unable to solve the problem of the sharing between the sensible things and Forms, the young Socrates finally has to accept the impossibility of sharing, third, further, just owing to this totally separation that is between the sensible things and Forms, Forms finally could not save the phenomena and could not be known by anyone. Actually, the three perplexities are the two topics of Plato’s way of truth, which is that how the lover of wisdom could know the Forms that are totally separate from the sensible things. The first topic is that, in what way the possibility of thinking and acquiring knowledge could be secured. That is, how the phenomena could be saved by Forms? The second topic is that, in what way the lover of wisdom could acquire the truth and becomes the real philosopher. As for the first, I think that Plato claims a kind of ontology, which has numerical character, in the second part of the Parmenides. This ontology provides deliberately the cosmogony of the Timaeus and the theory of the Principles in the Unwritten Doctrines that could justify the possibility of the phenomena that are saved by Forms. This possibility lies in the god’s nous and will, i.e. the world that has numerical character is fashioned by the god with Forms as model, and then the becoming phenomena that cling to the receptacle are saved and intelligible. Therefore, the god’s will is the supremely valid cause and principle of this possibility. As for the second, this exercise that can make the young Socrates as a real philosopher if he takes it into practice is the training, which takes Forms as its objects and be practiced in hypothetical method. I think the reason for Plato of using the hypothetical method is that this hypothetical method can make the lover of wisdom to cling to Forms when he is putting this exercise into practice, and in this upward process systematically, finally, he can fasten all the Forms with the final cause, i.e. the good. Therefore, when the lover of wisdom could show the real essence of each Form with reasonable account under the guidance of the good, he at that time is a real philosopher. Under this solution, Plato justifies the possibility for soul of knowing the truth, and makes his way of truth possible. In this fighting, those with whom Plato fights are not those philosophers that are remarked by Aristotle in Metaphysics A 6.987a33-b10, but the philosopher of Elea, Parmenides. On the one hand, the key point of Plato’s theory of Forms is coming from Parmenides’ concept of Being, which is ungenerated and imperishable, yet on the other hand, the attempt for the possibility of saving the phenomena and for soul to know the truth is urging Plato to put Parmenides’ claim to the question. Then what Plato has done in this fighting, which mainly occurs in the second part of the Parmenides, is that as he is solving these perplexities, he at the same time is stepping upon another way of truth, which is different from Parmenides. In this fighting, saving phenomena is the main difference between Plato and Parmenides. The god’s nous and will is the supremely valid cause and principle of the saved phenomena and this most supreme cause is the coping-stone for Plato’s way of truth. Keywords: Plato’s theory of Forms, separate, participate, the good, the hypothetical method, Plato, Parmenides, the Unwritten Doctrines, the Parmenides, the Timaeus.

俄羅斯聯邦是一個多民族國家，共有一百多個不同的民族生活在俄羅斯這塊土地上。這些少數民族有著自己的語言與文化，一有機會即想脫離俄羅斯獨立。尤其是車臣與韃靼斯坦這類文化差異較大的民族，一心渴望擁有自己主權。除了少數民族的獨立要求外，俄羅斯聯邦仍必須應付境內的地方主義聲浪。主要是因為俄羅斯的聯邦體制是由民族聯邦與區域聯邦結合而成的，境內有以民族為基礎的聯邦主體，同時也有以行政區域為劃分基礎的主體。 蘇聯晚期，俄羅斯總統葉爾欽為了與戈巴契夫爭權，喊出「你能夠拿多少主權就拿多少」的口號，各加盟共和國紛紛通過國家主權宣言，俄羅斯聯邦境內亦興起分離獨立氣氛。為了解決問題，葉爾欽於1992年3月與各聯邦主體分別簽署了3個聯邦條約，開始對中央與地方的權利義務關係作了說明。隨著政治情勢的變化，俄羅斯聯邦於1993年12月12日通過新憲法，明確的規範了中央與地方各自的權力，自此權力的行使有了依循的標準；1994年發生車臣戰爭，突顯出憲法無法解決所有問題，於是依據各主體需要簽訂的雙邊條約出現了，首先是俄韃條約，謂之「韃靼模式」。至此俄羅斯的聯邦體制大致完成。 俄羅斯聯邦體制的運作仍然存在許多問題，不論是在政治方面、經濟方面，甚或法律制度方面尚有不夠完善的地方。再加上地方主體的種類繁多，經濟條件、政治情況及文化取向差異甚大，影響著主體對聯邦關係的看法。因此要解決聯邦問題，就必須從制度上的缺陷及地方主體的態度來著手進行。 / Russian federation is a multi-national state, there are more than one hundred kinds of races. These minority races have their own culture and language, they desire to be independent from Russian federation, especially Chechenya and Tarstan. Besides independent demand, there still have localism in Russian federation. In Russian federation, there are two kinds of federal subject. One is ethno subject which based on races different from Russian, the other is territorial subject. Late years in Soviet Union, Russian president Yeltsin in order to struggle with Gorbachev, he said：“swallow what you can get”. Meanwhile, the Union Republics declare their sovereignty. The atmosphere in Russian federation is chaotic. To solve the problem, Yeltsin sighed three federal treaty with all subjects and define the right between center and subjects. Then 1993 passed the Russian Constitution, 1994 Chechen war exploded, that means constitution not suitable for every subject. Yeltsin decided to sign bilateral treaty with subjects, first one is Tartarstan Republic, called “Tartarstan Model”. Russian federal system still has several problems in politic, economic, and law, institution. Besides 89 subjects are so distinguished, their political condition, economic situation, culture are so different, all this affect their perception about federal relation.

違法取得之證據於民事訴訟上可否予以使用，涉及之層面甚為廣泛，最為相關者，即係對於發現真實之手段上，所容許最大界限之所在，此自涉及到民事訴訟制度上之價值判斷，因此欲釐清此一爭議問題，自有必要以民事訴訟之最上位法理，諸如發現真實之追求、民事訴訟制度之目的，以及促進訴訟等相關之基本理念予以探討，本文整理並歸納目前文獻上所提出之諸多理論，以違法取證可利用性之角度切入予以觀察，是否有所衝突抑或係理念相同之處，以尋求此議題於民事訴訟整體架構之定位；此外若係採取禁止使用之立場，為避免實質正義之完全剝奪，即須進一步探討民事訴訟制度之發展，是否已提供足以正當化禁止使用此類證據之正當性基礎，本文並以實務上最為常見之通姦案例為焦點，具體操作評估此理論基礎之可行性。 再者，職司審判之法院為達認定事實之要求，自須依自由心證而為證據取捨並為證據評價，此自為自由心證之內涵，而欲承認違法取得之證據將有禁止使用之可能者，自須探討是否法官得基於自由心證，而享有證據之利用自由，為釐清此一爭議，本文以證據能力之要件、證據能力與證據價值之區分、嚴格證明之要求，並進一步釐清民事訴訟法以及實務運作上對於各種證據能力之規範，以尋求違法取得之證據於自由心證之定位。 對於違法取得之證據倘若欲禁止使用，實務上所面臨到操作上之問題，即係基於何種理論基礎、何種審查方式、於審判程序何種階段予以審查、證據禁止之範圍均須一併納入探討之範圍予以釐清，而民事訴訟上違法取證之議題，外國法已發展出一套運作模式，因此本論文於此同時整理並歸納外國法之文獻，諸如英美法之證據排除法則之運作，以及德國法之證據禁止法則之介紹，並與我國法之制度運作互為參照比較，是否可為我國體系建構上之參考借鏡。 同時再以實務上較為常見之違反程序法，以即違反實體法所取得之證據，予以類型化分類，並以學說見解之介紹與實務見解之觀察與分析，探討是否有較為穩定性之運作模式，以符合法安定性。 最後基於實務見解對於此類議題已有為數不少之判決，本論文即以表格化之方式，予以呈現實務上目前對於證據禁止使用之審查方式為何、證據禁止使用之比例多寡、對於各種類型係以何種原因作為判斷可利用性之考量，期望能較為清楚目前實務見解對此一議題之走向。