第二次世界大戰結束以後，以美國為首的西方國家為了嚇阻蘇聯的入侵，遂成立了北大西洋公約組織。這也標誌著冷戰時期美蘇兩強對峙的局面。冷戰結束以後，許多學者因而預言北約即將瓦解。但多年以來，北約卻依然存在，更歷經了三次東擴。本文寫作的目的，便欲透過重新檢視國際關係理論三大主要學派的觀點，對於後冷戰時期的北約存續提出解釋。 在現實主義學者陣營中，摩根索與華爾滋的「權力平衡」論點與北約發展的史實不符；施韋勒的「扈從利益」論點僅部分解釋了國家聯盟行為，對於「扈從」概念的界定又出現前後不一；米爾斯海默的「推卸責任」論點試圖同時涵蓋「制衡」與「不制衡」兩種選項，而純粹的「推卸責任」策略又必須依賴其他國家願意承擔，因此不易成功。瓦特的「威脅平衡」理論雖仍有不足之處，但較適合解釋本文的個案。筆者認為，後冷戰時期的北約便是面臨了大規模毀滅性武器擴散、俄羅斯存在與恐怖主義等威脅，才強化了盟國繼續合作的意願。 從新自由主義學者的觀點而言，國家若欲在無政府狀態的國際體系中維持合作關係，便需要以互惠為基礎而運作的國際制度。當國際制度能隨著成員的需求而調整時，就能獲得更多支持。由於美國的優勢國力受到北約的制度規範與集體決策機制削弱，又具有軟權力的勸服力量，遂吸引了中、東歐國家加入聯盟。此外，民主國家之間較不容易發生戰爭。這些因素都維繫了北約盟國在後冷戰時期的合作關係。 由於後冷戰時期的北約在訴求「內群體」偏袒的同時，卻未激化「外群體」歧視。建構主義學者認為，若隨著聯盟關係的發展，成員之間能培養出休戚與共的集體身份，將個別的國家安全問題視同為集體的安全議題時，彼此便超越了傳統軍事聯盟在攻擊與防禦上合作的功能，而達到安全共同體的境界。北約所具備的規範特性也進一步增強了其對盟國的型塑能力。 聯盟的本質在於合作。但關鍵是國家為何合作、如何促進合作，以及如何決定合作對象或競爭對手。事實上，後冷戰時期的北約並未放棄對付共同威脅的核心目標，卻也逐漸發展出安全管理的功能，不但參與了維和行動，也建立起和俄羅斯與烏克蘭的對話機制，更凝聚了盟國的信念而形成具有集體身份的安全共同體。 / In the aftermath of WWII, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), mainly led by the U.S., was formed to deter U.S.S.R.’s aggression. This organization signified the bipolar system of international relations. When the Cold War came to an end, many scholars once predicted NATO would collapse. However, the alliance still endures for decades and enlarges eastward three times. The purpose of the dissertation is to reappraise the perspectives from three major schools of International Relation theory and provide some explanation of NATO’s endurance in the post-Cold War era. In the camp of realists, the balance-of-power theory raised by Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth N. Waltz is inconsistent with the facts of NATO’s development. The bandwagon-for-profit theory proposed by Randall L. Schweller only gives partial explanation of international alliances and takes a contradictory position on the concept of bandwagon. The buck-passing theory maintained by John J. Mearsheimer tries to include both the options of balance and not-balance on the one hand, while depends heavily on other states’ willingness to take the responsibility of balance on the other hand. As far as we know, the latter seldom results in success. Although the balance-of-threat theory sustained by Stephen M. Walt still has some shortcomings, it can provide a better explanation of the case discussed in the dissertation. This author concludes that NATO faces multiple threats of the spread of WMD, the existence of Russia and transnational terrorism in the post-Cold War era. That’s why the allies continue to cooperate. From the standing points of neo-liberalists, if states want to maintain cooperation under the anarchical international system, they will need international institutions based on reciprocity. When international institutions can be adjusted with the demand of their member states, they will obtain more supports. Because the primacy of the U.S. was reduced by the institutional rules and joint decision making process in NATO and accompanied with persuasive soft power, some Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) were drew to join the alliance. Moreover, there are few wars among democracies. For all these reasons, NATO still survives until now. When NATO seeks to develop in-group favoritism in the post-Cold War era, it does not activate out-group discrimination. Constructivists state that if members of alliances can cultivate their collective identities and transform national security problems into collective ones, they can go beyond traditional military alliances and become security communities. Features of norms in NATO also strengthen their capabilities in shaping the alliance. The essence of alliance is cooperation. Its key points for states lie in why they cooperate, how to facilitate their cooperation and how to choose their partners or opponents. As a matter of fact, in the aftermath of the Cold War, NATO doesn’t give up its core purpose of fighting against common threats, while it develops the function of security management gradually. Besides, NATO takes part in the peace-keeping operations and builds the mechanisms for communication with Russia and Ukraine. In the end, NATO solidates the belief from its member states and turns into a security community of collective identity.

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。

911事件後，阿富汗戰爭與第2次海灣戰爭改變國際石油能源板塊，激化大國間的能源爭奪。遠東石油管競標案之爭議，顯示中日積極尋求海灣國家以外之替代來源，中日爭奪遠東石油管線的過程，可視為21世紀亞洲的石油戰爭。該政策之發展勢將影響東北亞各國能源政策之走向，與區域國際關係。 本文乃層次分析法之個案研究，分別從國際層次、國家層次、決策層次等面向切入，探討遠東石油管線案峰迴路轉之深層因素。就國際層次而言，遠東石油管爭議案是日本與中國爭奪石油管線的角力過程；就國家層次而言，遠東石油管爭議案是俄羅斯官方打壓金融寡頭的過程；就決策層次而言，遠東石油管爭議案是俄羅斯行政內，不同派系政爭的過程，以及克里姆林宮內經濟顧問派與安全顧問派爭奪國家發展方向的過程。 / This article is a case study of levels of analysis. It is a researching about Russian pipeline dispute in North East Asia from the view of nation state and decision-making levels. The case offers a step in direction to realize power struggle between 2 families in Russia After 2000. For the long-time, Russian politics has hassled for the national develop line: Security or Economy. Under the policy argument, different groups struggle to control the politic right to speak, and future direction of country. As a top leader of security system, President Putin（Putin Vladimir Vlaimirovich, Владимир Владимирович Путин）has no chose but incriminated into the ero-sum struggle. The result can affect Russian domestic affairs, foreign and security policy, even the development of national line after 2008 and the order of CIS and Eastern-North Asia. We hypothesize that: (1) Power struggle during Yeltsin Period: Power transition in Russia after 2000 is not the change of Russian president, but also the substitution among different interest groups. The war has started even before Putin came to power. And, it is still on going now. (2) State Duma: In state duma, in the election in the end of 2003, United Russia party draws much of its strength from administrative resources. Duma become legislative bureau of Putin. (3) In executive administration, Putin controls Kremlin after fall of Aleksandr S. Voloshin in 2003, and, controls administrative system after fall of Kasyanov in 2004. Finally, controls military system after fall of Anatoli kvashnin in 2004. And, the pipeline is the victim of political struggle.

平均地權之四大實施辦法中，漲價歸公為最重要的手段與精神，其實施之成果係決定平均地權成敗之關鍵。為求社會共享土地自然增值，必須徹底實行漲價歸公，因為土地價值增漲如能徵收歸公，地利共享之正義理想即可實現。惟回顧過去國內文獻有關漲價歸公之研究，缺乏哲學觀念上之探討，亦缺乏從漲價歸公所注重社會正義及分配正義之概念來研究漲價歸公。 　　基此，本文希望藉由探討西方哲學有關正義學說之觀點與內涵，尋找適合檢視我國漲價歸公之西方正義概念，並進而從西方正義哲學觀點來研究我國漲價歸公理論。另外，藉由對孫中山先生相關言論與評論的探討，針對漲價歸公精神進行真意探究與觀念釐清，冀圖化解國人對漲價歸公之誤解。本文亦希望透過研究漲價歸公理論探求強調社會互助的正義概念，以供我國未來實施漲價歸公相關政策作為參考。 　　經由本文研究可歸納出以下結論：一、漲價歸公深具以全民利益為依歸的思想、社會互助的關懷及社會群體正義之「義務論」特質。二、談論漲價歸公之分配正義時，對土地增值利益進行分派，也必須對土地增值利益的「物品性質」進行「定義」（土地增值的定義，為特殊的土地增值利益亦或一般資本利得），才能夠進行後續的資源「分配」（如藉由課稅來進行資源的分配）。三、土地增值稅減半、永久調降所造成的不正義的最大原因，並非一般人所認為的「壟斷」，而是對土地增值利益物品定義的「支配」。四、國家和政治權力除非有重大及正當的理由，否則必須盡可能地避免干涉各社群或是領域內的分配行為(如漲價歸公的方式)。五、土地增值利益係就非屬私人改良的部分應予歸公，因其具有「社會互助」、「社會正義」與「分配正義」的精神，故漲價歸公之分配領域中，要以「需要原則」之分配型態來處理土地增值利益。六、漲價歸公之土地增值利益要如何區分公、私產權，在理論上可達到，但在實務上卻是相當難以實現，因為我們絕對不知道在哪裡建立一種區分是合適的、是客觀的，因為它沒有一個天生的位置。

本文研究重點係母子公司合併時子公司少數股東權益保障的爭議問題，並嘗試從美國法之觀點檢討我國母子公司合併案例與相關之規範設計。 從美國德拉瓦州法院對於母子公司合併規範模式之演變，應可察覺一國法制總體面因素的變化，以及合併基礎法制變遷，對於母子公司合併規範設計之影響。總體面因素諸如當代公共政策的游移、投資人與市場周邊機制之成熟度、公司內部治理機制的健全、社會思潮的偏向等；合併基礎法制幾個重大變遷，包括可決合併門檻多數決原則之確立、簡易以及制式現金逐出合併之陸續完成立法等，在在都影響了法院對於母子公司合併之規範態度。法院的態度變化，也顯現在子公司少數股東所擁有之兩項救濟，亦即股份收買請求權以及違反受任人義務訴訟救濟，在近一世紀以來，其起初係平行發展、繼而相互競爭至目前走向調和之變遷過程。而在過程中，違反受任人義務的內涵與課責標準一直持續變化，連帶地也影響股份收買請求權理論基礎的汰換、調整與新生。 德拉瓦州法院對於母子公司合併的處理方式，是區分簡易合併與制式合併而適用不同的規範模式。制式合併係適用「財產法則」概念下之常規交易審查模式，違反常規交易標準即屬違反受任人義務；簡易合併則因為協商成本太高，所以適用「補償法則」，以股份收買請求權為唯一救濟。此項規範模式，很顯然地是一種妥協之處理方式。尤其股份收買請求權之相關配套設計，包括評價得否採計合併綜效、救濟成本之負擔方式以及程序障礙設計猶存諸多問題，採取「補償法則」背後的考量因素或許正是為便利母公司執行合併。 從美國德拉瓦州公司法母子公司合併規範設計之歷史演變，比較我國目前現階段的母子公司合併規範之設計，大體說來，由於我國公司法與企業併購法之規範設計不利於子公司與母公司進行協商、再加上董事以及控制股東（亦即母公司）對於子公司之股東並無直接負受任人義務，在子公司股東無法對於不公平的合併對價，直接請求董事或母公司負擔損害賠償責任的情況下，將很難期待子公司的董事會盡力為子公司少數股東，向母公司爭取公平的合併對價。 換言之，由於我國受任人義務體系之不完備，少數股東縱然認為合併對價涉及不公情事，似乎也祇能依照民法侵權行為之規定，向董事或母公司請求損害賠償。按照民法第一八四條之規定，其舉證責任門檻事實上即相當於美國法對於簡易合併場合之規範。亦即是說，我國法似乎並無特別針對母子公司合併此項具有利益衝突之重大交易，提出任何有別於常規交易之差異規範，此即導致子公司少數股東僅能按照一般侵權行為之規範，請求母公司或董事負擔損害賠償責任，這對於少數股東而言，自是甚為不利。 短期而言，從經濟政策上係鼓勵合併，抑或從我國公司內部治理機制以及市場機制尚未健全發展至足以提供子公司相當之協商力量以與母公司抗衡的角度，我國似乎都無法在仿效美國於制式合併場合，建立偏向「財產法則」概念下之「近似常規交易協商模式」。因此，現階段或應思考從改善我國股份收買請求權設計開始著手。對此，ALI Principles與RMBCA有關股份收買請求權設計之立法例，我國應擇其優而加以援用。 長期而言，按照我國現階段的規範趨勢，似乎係在仿效美國法制，逐漸朝向市場導向之公司治理機制（market-oriented style of corporate governance），因此持續開拓我國資本市場的深度與廣度，以及建立適合於我國公司生態的公司內部治理機制，都將是繼續努力的目標。倘若未來我國市場之周邊機制與公司內部治理機制皆能發揮適當的治理功能，前述偏重於「補償法則」概念下規範模式之股份收買請求權設計，即有必要加以調整，以避免美國現階段在現金逐出合併場合所發生之「規範重疊」（regulation overlap）問題。

老年所得保障的問題，是所有工業化國家所共有的社會問題。臺灣、德國與美國為了解決這個問題，基本上都是採用所謂的「三層保障的模式」。第一層保障為國家所建立的強制性社會保險制度，第二層保障為企業或雇主所設立的企業退休給付制度，第三層為個人的自我預護（包括儲蓄、保險、置產等）。本文主要是探討第二層的「企業退休給付制度」之法律問題。臺灣的「企業退休給付制度」（也稱之為「企業退休金制度」），是採強制性為主，自願性為輔的雙軌制度，自願性制度所佔比例無足輕重。在強制性制度中的實施型態是採「單數型態」，而且由「單一組織」承擔實施。美國的「企業退休給付制度」稱為「年金（退休金）計劃(pension plan)」，德國的「企業退休給付(betriebliche Altersversorgung)制度」也稱為「企業年金(Betriebsrenten)制度」。這兩個國家向來都是採用自願性制度，「實施型態」與「實施機構」也都是採「複數型態」。 關於企業退休給付的法律保障，臺灣於1984年在勞動基準法中納入「退休規定」，對勞工退休金制度的設立、實施型態、實施機構、財務準備與給付內容皆制定最低的法律標準，然而對於勞工的退休金期待利益如何保障與雇主陷於支付不能時退休金請求權如何保障等重要問題，皆欠缺規定。德國於1974年制定「改善企業退休給付法」，採有限度的立法，對已設立的企業退休給付制度制定最低法定基準，特別注重「退休給付期待利益之保障」與「退休給付支付不能時之保障」；同一年美國也制定「勞工退休所得保障法」，採取全面性的立法，不僅注重「勞工退休給付權利之保障（包括對退休給付期待利益之保障）」，也同樣針對「退休計劃之終止與支付不能的情形」設有特別的保障。 本文主要是以臺灣的「勞基法退休規定」，德國的「改善企業退休給付法」與美國的「勞工退休所得保障法」等法律規定為基礎。針對同一問題，分別探討臺灣、德國與美國的法律制度。第一節首先探討企業退休給付制度之歷史發展，企業退休給付制度究竟如何形成？如何逐步擴展？法律如何回應？在立法之後又面臨何種問題？第二節首先討論退休給付制度的核心法律概念，以及其如何與雇主的其他給付相區別。接著進一步探究勞工請求雇主給付退休金之法律基礎為何？然後再探討企業退休給付之法律性質。第三節分析企業退休給付制度，以何種型態實施，如何運作，在組織上產生何種法律關係。第四節探討企業退休給付的財務準備。第五節以給付為中心，探討企業退休給付的一般法律保障，包括：請求退休金的法律要件為何？請求範圍如何決定？如何與社會保險給付整合？如何支付？在面對通貨膨脹壓力時又如何因應？第六節探討企業退休給付期待利益如何保障之問題，詳細探討德國與美國為何要保障退休給付期待利益？在何種情形下，退休給付期待利益不可喪失？勞工退休時，退休給付期待利益如何實現為退休給付，如何計算其數額？勞工離職時，可否一次結清將來的退休給付權利？勞工轉換工作時，退休金債權是否可隨同移轉？最後一節探討退休給付發生支付不能之情形時，有何解決辦法？第五章比較三國退休給付法律制度有何異同？有何優缺點？並檢討行政院勞工委員會所提的「勞工老年附加年金保險險制度」草案，與「勞工退休金條例草案」之優缺點，並探討我國勞工退休金制度法律改革是否存在其他不同的途徑。？最後一章總結前面各章之研究所得作成結論。 / Old-age income security is a sharing social problem of all industrialized countries. 「Three tiers (pillars) of economic security」 has been used for solving this problem in Taiwan, Germany and U.S.A. The first tier is obligatory social insurance system established by the countries; the second tier is the composition of　“supplementary pension plans” created by companies or employers; the third tier is personal advance arrangements (include saving, purchase of insurance, investment, etc.). This dissertation concentrates on the legal protection of supplementary pension plans.　The supplementary pension plans in Taiwan is a double-track institution. While the voluntary part of it is rather insignificant, this institution is mainly in obligatory part. This obligatory supplementary pension plans is designed to be only one type － defined benefit plans, and there is only one designated funding agency － the Central Trust of China. In U.S.A. the supplementary pension plans used to be called “private pension plans”; in Germany the supplementary pension plans used to be called “company pensions (Betriebsrenten)”.　These two countries adopt voluntary institutions. The types and funding agencies of their supplementary pension plans are plural. In order to protect the rights of pension, the relevant laws were enacted in Taiwan, Germany， and U.S.A. Regulations about employee retirement benefits were included in the “Labor Standards Law” enacted in 1984 in Taiwan.　These regulations created minimum standards for the establishment, requirement of benefit, funding and funding agency, benefit formulas of retirement plans.　However these regulations　lacked protection of pension expectations and rights to pension against insolvency or bankruptcy of supporting employers.　In Germany the relevant regulations about supplementary pension plans are to be found in the “Act on Company Pensions” in force since December 1974.　This Act regulated very limitedly. It established minimum standards for company pensions, especially relating to protection of pension expectations, and pension benefit rights against insolvency of supporting employers. In the same year the “Employee Retirement Income Security Act” of 1974 (ERISA) was enacted in U.S.A..　This comprehensive employee benefit law not only stressed on protection of employee benefit rights (including protecting vesting right), but also created insurance for pension plan terminations. This dissertation mainly compares the legal institutions relating to　supplementary pension　plans in Taiwan, Germany and U.S.A. on the basis of the above statute laws relating to the supplementary pension plans of these three countries. Chapter 1 is the introduction of this research.　Chapter 2、3 and 4 discuss the legal institutions relating to supplementary pension　plans of these three countries. In each section of each chapter the same problems are discussed. Section 1 provides an overview of the historic background of supplementary pension plans and development of relevant laws, including how the supplementary pension plans have formed and expanded, how the law regulated, and problems that have been caused after enactment of the law relating to supplementary pension plans. Section 2 firstly discusses the core legal concept of supplementary pension in each country, and how it differentiates from other benefits of employers. Then this section probes into the legal bases of supplementary pension claims and the characteristics of supplementary pension.　Section 3 analyzes different types of supplementary pension plans, how they operate, and legal relations that have been produced. Section 4 explores pension funding.　Section 5 discusses the general legal protection of pension benefits, including participation, requirement of benefit, payment of benefit. The question of how supplementary pension integrates with social security benefit and counteracts the effect of inflation is also discussed.　Section 6 discusses how the relating laws of supplementary pension plans protect pension expectations, why the laws of Germany and U.S.A. protect pension expectations, when the pension benefit rights are nonforfeitable, how the nonforfeitable benefit is accrued, under which condition a nonforfeitable benefit can cash out, and whether the nonforfeitable benefit is portable when the employee changes the job?　The last section discusses the legal protection against insolvency of employers or termination of pension plans. After comparing the supplementary pension plans and its legal protections of Taiwan, Germany, and U.S.A.，chapter 5 examines advantages and disadvantages of the two recent drafts of supplementary pension plans reforms proposed by CLA (Council of Labor Affairs)in Taiwan. One is “Draft of the Old-age Supplementary Insurance of Employees” , and the other is “Draft of Employee Pension Act “ . The possibilities of having other ways for reforming supplementary pension plans institution of this country is also discussed in this chapter.　The last chapter puts research results of the preceding chapters into a conclusion.

2012年3月28日爆發的文林苑事件，北市府對於王家的合法獨立建物執行強制拆除，該建物無礙公共安全，且由外觀上看來並無都更之必要。王家與其支持者誓死抵抗，同意戶因原有房屋早被拆除而返家無期亦備受煎熬，預售屋的買主亦稱自己才是真正受害者，同時間政府與實施者皆堅稱一切都是「依法行事」:依照「都市更新條例」。文林苑事件引起的質疑與辯論迄今未歇，公權力之發動是否與重要公益失去連結？都更法制之設計與運作是否向建商不當傾斜？民眾之權利救濟於實體或程序上是否有不當障礙？ 2013年4月26日，司法院釋字第709號解釋宣告都更條例若干條款不符憲法要求之正當行政程序，相關機關應就違憲部分檢討修正。值此修法之際，正是對都更體制全面體檢的良好時機。本文將聚焦於民辦都更模式，依都更條例的多階段行政程序設計，深入檢視各階段中政府行政行為之法律性質與救濟途徑、分析造成重大爭議之條款所牽動之公法或私法關係、探究法規之實體與程序規定是否合宜、並歸納實務判決對於都更法律之適用與解釋原則，冀能提供修法之適切建議。 整體觀之，無論是採協議合建或是權利變換方式，民辦都更體制所採取的多階段行政程序，於一開始自行劃定更新單元時就與重要公益失去有效連結，而於「事業計畫」與「權利變換計畫」階段就個案之公益性與必要性亦無具體之檢驗標準。隨著程序之遞進，對於不同意者之基本權限制逐漸加深，但對不同意者權利之保護卻逐漸弱化，甚至在執行階段導致不同意者之財產權與居住自由被完全剝奪。此種法制之設計思維亦反映在實際運作上，政府傾向與實施者站在同一立場，在「大多數人之私益等於公共利益」與「加速都更」此理所當然之脈絡下，不同意者之權益經常被忽略，且被迫負擔不成比例的不良後果。 確實，就不同意者之權益保障，都更體制之設計於各階段中無論在實體與程序方面均有欠缺之處，尤其是執行階段，實施者得借用公權力之設計更讓整個都更體制朝實施者偏斜而去，致不同意者與實施者間所產生之私權關係嚴重失衡。而於行政救濟方面，法院傾向尊重審議會之判斷餘地而採寬鬆立場，故就行政行為對地主權益之侵害是否合理與正當，似易錯失再度檢驗之機會。 本文主要建議，政府劃定更新地區時，應確保民眾之程序參與並明白揭示其救濟之道；於事業計畫核定前，宜准許地主撤銷同意書；於權利變換階段，應增設同意機制，估價師之選定與委任宜讓地主參與，審議核復之救濟程序應予明文釐清；於執行階段，因強拆與強徵手段不符公益與比例原則，恐不宜適用於民辦都更案件。 總括而言，現行都更之法律體制一律以單純「國家與人民」之公法二維思維來規範都更事務，自對當事人間私益之權衡欠缺考量。尤其民辦都更主要涉及以私法為本質的私權關係，此種因循公法框架之制度設計，更無法平衡兼顧各方私益之調和。本文亦贊同，都更之實施應以公辦都更為主要之模式，俾能與上位的都市計畫產生有效的連結，並較可能基於公益之理由而發動公權力。至於民間發動之都更，因多以追逐私益為主要目的，政府之介入既無法確保權利人間利益之公平分配，又無法提供與公益之有效連結，在無都更必要性與急迫性之情形，則以回歸傳統私法自治之範疇，經全體同意為宜。 惟重要的是，無論是民辦與公辦都更，應訂定具體之公益檢驗標準，並區分都更之必要性與急迫性，以分級制度適用寬嚴不同的程序，且應於各階段設計針對個別建物公益性與必要性之評估機制。尤其，強制拆除與強制徵收都必須節制為最後手段，僅宜運用在情況最為急迫嚴重之案例。如此，始能期待各方當事人與社會大眾同享都更之果實。 / On 28 March 2012, the Taipei City Government exercised its authority to evict the homeowners and tear down the buildings, which were legally and exclusively owned by the Wang family refusing to take part in the urban renewal project. Neither did the buildings pose any existing threat to public safety, nor did it show any urgent need for urban renewal. Thus, the so-called “Wen-Lin Yuan Incident” sparked a series of confrontation: The Wang family and its supporters vowed to defend homes with their lives； the 36 households taking part in the project hoped to speed up the construction, because their houses have long been demolished by developer； the buyers of the pre-sale houses said they were also the innocent victims； meanwhile the private developer and the city government insisted that their handling in this case has been adhering to the law-The Urban Renewal Act. The debates and questions ignited in this dispute have sustained and continued till now: Does the exercise of official authority well connect with the purpose of important public interest? Are the Urban Renewal Act and the related regulations designed and used to favor developers? Is there unreasonable substantive or procedural obstacles on legal remedies for residents? On 26 April 2013, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation No. 709, which declared some provisions of the Urban Renewal Act do not comply with the due process in administrative procedures required by the Constitution and the unconstitutional parts of the provisions should be reviewed and amended by the relevant authorities. It’s time to fully re-examine the current urban renewal laws. Based on the multiphase-administrative-procedural model, the Urban Renewal Act governs and facilitates the renewal projects initiated by both private and public sector. This thesis focuses solely on the issues of private-initiated renewal projects. Within each phase, by examining in detail the legal nature and remedies of government decisions or actions, analyzing how controversial statutes influencing the relationship between individuals and the government and the relationship between individuals, exploring if the substantive or procedural provisions are appropriate, and generalizing legal principles enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions, hope this thesis can make meaningful suggestions for the amendment of the law. From an overall perspective, no matter what the method taken- “Rights Transformation” or “Joint Construction Agreement”, starting from the early phase of “business summary”, in which the law allows property owners to designate the renewal units by themselves, the legal system on the private-initiated urban renewal causes great risk of losing effective connection to an important public-interest purpose. Moreover, in the “business plan” and “rights- transformation plan” phases, the law lacks clear standards or criteria to check if the specific case meets the proportionality principle and whether the public interest is best served. As each phase involves different government decisions, the restrictions on the property right of dissenting owners grow bigger, yet the mechanism for their rights protection becomes weaker, eventually in the final “execution” phase, the dissenting owners could be completely deprived of their property right and freedom of residence. When it comes to the practical application, following this legal structure’s line of reasoning, the administrative agency tends to act in concert with implementer (mostly private developer), both parties interpret public interest as the sum of most private interests and aim at speeding up the whole process, so that the dissenting property owners’ rights are usually overlooked and the dissents are forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of the negative effects. Actually, for the property owners refusing to join the project, the law fails to provide proper protection no matter substantively or procedurally. Especially in the “execution” phase, the implementers are entitled to request the government to demolish or expropriate the property. Thus, through the indirect transfer of public power to the implementer, the law impairs the supposed-to-be-fair balance between the rights of the property owners and the rights of the implementer. On the other hand, in administrative judicial proceedings, given that administrative courts often defer to the discretion of expert committee set up by administrative agency for the review of renewal projects, it is unsurprising that the courts tend to adopt administrative agency’s litigation interpretation. Thus, when property owners’ fundamental constitutional rights are infringed, the administrative action may not be under adequate scrutiny by courts. This thesis proposes that: in the first phase when designating the renewal area, the administrative agency should ensure an open and transparent public participation, and after decision made, especially for those most affected in the renewal area, including property owners and residents, the legal remedy should be clearly specified in the law； before the “business plan” approved and announced by administrative agency, property owners should be allowed to withdraw their letter of consent unconditionally； in “rights- transformation plan” phase, the consent mechanism should be added into the process, property owners should be entitled to participate in selecting and entrusting real estate appraisers, the special “disagreement inspection procedure” should be well-clarified and defined in law； in the last “execution” phase, the use of forced demolition or expropriation as a legal instrument to take private property for private-initiated renewal projects, cannot be justified under the principle of proportionality and public interest. Thus, the related unconstitutional regulations need to be modified. In short, the current urban renewal laws are designed under the framework of governing the relationships between government and individuals. As for the relationship between individuals, especially in the now dominating private-initiated mode, this original design is inherently flawed to balance the diverse and competing interests among different private parties. In essence, all urban renewal projects should conform to the overall urban plan adopted and formulated by the city government. Besides, the use of authority and power can be legitimate only when implementing public purpose and public benefits. Given that the government-initiated mode is more likely to be consistent with the comprehensive urban plan and be aligned with public interest, this thesis suggests that government take the responsibility to lead and initiate most urban renewal projects. As for the private-initiated mode, which mostly driven by short-term private profits, the current government intervention can neither ensure equitable distribution of benefit among stakeholders, nor can it provide a significant link to public interest, thus, better leave it to the traditional realm of private law, that is, if there is no necessity or urgency, reconstruction shall require the consent of all property owners. If the public and private modes are to be maintained and co-exist in the urban renewal system, both laws should contain concrete guidelines and standards on factors that should be taken into account in determining if the designation of renewal areas or units is in pursuit of important public interest. Besides, a priority rating system should be established based on the degree of need and urgency to categorize the different procedural implementation, aiming to ensure a direct correlation between the degree of government intervention and the degree of need and urgency. Furthermore, an assessment tool of the necessity and proportionality is required to be built in each phase, thus to help administrative agency decide whether in the particular case, the public interest outweighs the interests adversely affected. In all cases, the use of eminent domain and forced demolition should be reserved as the last resort for the most serious conditions. Hopefully, by the aforementioned amendments, the promised fruits of urban renewal can be available not only to the parties involved but also to the general public.

我國家事事件法於2012年6月1日施行，新法基於家事事件妥適、迅速解決，與統合處理並促進程序經濟，以平衡家事事件當事人間實體利益與程序利益等目的，將向來適用關於家事事件所適用之法律，包括民事訴訟法、非訟事件法等法律，統合於一部法典，並將家事事件依各該事件之訟爭性強弱程度、當事人或利害關係人對程序標的所享有之處分權限範圍、需求法院職權裁量以迅速裁判程度之不同等要素區分為甲、乙、丙、丁、戊及家事事件法第3條第6項之其他應由家事法院處理之事件等六種事件類型，惟該事件類型區分之方式並無法妥適說明其與家事事件法、民事訴訟法等程序法間適用之關係，且亦無法適切回應各該家事事件所依據之民法親屬編及繼承編中，關於立法者已就實體法規範所設立之價值判斷。 　　本文自訴訟程序及非訟程序、訴訟事件及非訟事件間之異同及區別論，認為事件分類與各該事件應如何適用程序法理係屬二事，尤於家事事件所牽涉者係實體法與程序法、財產法與身分法交錯適用之領域，基於家事事件之特殊性與複雜性，更應有依各該不同事件類型而有適用不同程序法理之可能，始足以回應關於實體法上之價值判斷，故應放棄向來訴訟與非訟事件之區分概念，而應依各該家事事件之本質（實體法價值）量身打造其所應適用之程序法理（程序法規範）。藉由探討向來架構程序法理之重要原則，如處分權主義與職權主義、辯論主義與職權探知主義、嚴格證明與自由證明、直接審理與間接審理及公開審理與不公開審理等，此類程序原則如何在各該家事事件中妥適適用，且基於實體法觀察之立場，各該程序原則亦應有其適用之界限，而與向來以財產紛爭為對象所建構之民事訴訟程序法理應有所不同。 　　因現行家事事件法分類結果，將使實體法與程序法規範間有所扞格，且導致程序法理適用上之疑義，是以本文以為於家事事件應類型化程序法理適用，依各該家事事件之種類，先回歸各該事件實體法規範之體系與價值為何，再思考程序法理上應如何設計，始足以妥適回應各該家事事件之實體法上價值判斷。而基於類型化程序法理適用肯定論之前提下，本文以為，關於家事事件應如何適用程序法理，應各別自各該家事事件之實體法依據尋求其解釋適用之依據，亦即，基於家事事件之特殊性，各該事件程序應適用之程序法理尚未能均一而論，而自各該事件所適用之原則，大別可區分為應適用訴訟法理事件、應原則適用訴訟法理輔以非訟法理事件、應原則適用非訟法理輔以訴訟法理事件及應適用非訟法理事件等類型，而本文於第五章中亦就各家事事件應如何適用程序法理，亦按照各該事件類型名稱加以分類，並分別詳論各該家事事件應如何適用處分權主義或職權主義、辯論主義或職權探知主義、嚴格證明或自由證明、直接審理或間接審理及是否採取公開審理主義。

本論文係以工程風險及我國工程保險之現況與發展作為基礎，先予敘明目前當代工程保險的起源與趨勢，鑒古知今，推論出工程保險應回歸以安全檢查與損害防阻作為思考核心，並強調工程風險管理的重要性，進而有發展工程界與保險界聯合行動模式之可能性，使工程從策劃階段即獲得風險管理，而保險人亦得依保險法第九十六條以下之規定，於施工過程中介入安全檢查措施，共同防範出險。 再者，就工程保險之本質以言，應強調工程保險係屬於損失填補保險，故於處理相關實務爭議時，必須考量到工程保險應受到損失填補原則之限制。且因工程保險係採取全險保單的方式為之，是以，本文認為應得參酌美國立法例，而特別強調保險利益有無之判斷。 此外，現今工程保險實務上所面臨之諸多爭議，實得以「保險責任期間」作為軸心而貫穿之。即本文認為，應辨明保險期間並非完全等同於保險責任期間，而於探究保險人是否應負理賠責任時，其重點之一應係在於保險責任期間是否開始、終止或延長。對此，本文認為，應可從下列幾個主要之面向加以觀察：一者，若自工程契約之關係以論，首須探討者，係民法相關概念（如交付、受領）與工程實務上所使用之「啟用」、「接管」、「驗收」之概念是否相同？有無歧異之處？更為重要者，係工程風險究應如何合理分配？二者，若自工程保險契約之角度以觀，則需分析保險契約所承保的危險是否增加？保險利益是否變動？具權威性之地位，而被譽為工程契約「聖經」的國際規範FIDIC標準契約條款之相關內容為何？ 本文認為，由於判斷工程保險契約時往往將受到工程契約內容之影響，而工程契約又多係由定作人一方所主導擬定，故而在判定保險人是否應依工程保險契約負擔理賠責任時，毋寧應本著公平合理之精神，配合工程慣例，從工程契約、工程保險契約所關涉之定作人、承攬人，以及保險人三方關係而為綜合審酌認定。換言之，不應使業主人有機會利用工程契約之約定，而將本應由業主承擔之風險移轉至承包商一方，進而間接地影響保險人應否理賠之判斷。 歸納以言，本文認為，我國工程保險實務爭議的解決方向，應以保險責任期間作為保險人是否需予理賠的主要判斷基準之一；再者，並應認知到工程保險本質上係屬於損失填補保險，而需受到損失填補原則之限制；另參酌美國立法例，需強調工程保險之保險利益有無之判斷；又於配合我國國情之前提下，應得適時適度地引進國際規範FIDIC標準契約條款之相關內容，以使我國與國際之接軌能更為緊密切實。

員工持股計畫是由財經律師Louis Kelso所創，在美國已行之多年，廣為美國企業所採。最早的員工持股計畫是一種為了和平地從資本家手中移轉資本給員工、縮減貧富差距的工具。為了使這個計畫可以持續有效地運作下去，立法者將員工持股計畫為退休金計畫的一種，使員工必須長期持有股票，直到退休。然而在實務運作上，員工持股信託經常被運用為防止敵意併購的工具。尤有甚者，某些公司內部人會利用員工持股計畫為自己取得大量資金、移轉投資風險,但仍可保留對於公司的控制力。這些行為都有可能對股東及員工造成不利的影響，但在現行法制下，只能仰賴司法者透過判決保護這些經濟及資訊上的弱勢族群。 在台灣，員工持股計畫雖然已廣為許多企業所採用，但是發展了將近20年，只能成為另一種員工持有股票的工具。員工擁有的股票數量並不足以使其在股東會上贏得一個受公司內部人重視的地位，也不足以倚賴這些股票作為退休金之用。這種規模上的差異是台美員工持股計畫最關鍵的不同點。小規模雖然使員工持股計畫帶來的優勢少了許多，但相對地也減低許多代理成本，至今未有員工持股計畫侵害大量員工利益的事件爆發。然而這不表示員工持股計畫在台灣就是個可以被忽略的問題，若能在未來建立一套有效率的立法制度，使員工持股計畫的規模擴大，員工將可因此享受到更多公司盈餘，並且使其退休生活受到保障。相對地，參考美國員工持股計畫的問題後，也可以預先設想未來可能發生的弊端，未雨綢繆。本文相信，一個有效率的員工持股計畫，可以實現解決貧富不均的理想。 / Employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) which is created by Louis Kelso is brought to practice for many years. Many enterprises use it as their retirement pension plan. The earliest employee stock ownership plan to transfer the capital frome capitalists to labors and reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor.In order to make the plan work out continueously and effectively, the legislator devise ESOP as a pension fund which makes employee own stock chronically until they retires. However, in practice, ESOP is usually exercised for preventing hostile takeover. Moreover, some company insiders may use ESOP TTO get a great deal of capital and transfer the investment risk, but still own the controlling power to their company. This behaviors will cause some harmful effects to the shareholders and the employees, but in the current legal system,the only one we can depend is the judge who can protect the minority in the economic and the information. ESOP is exercised by many enterprises in Taiwan. But after 20 years, it can only become one of the tools which assist employees to acquire company stocks.The number of shares which employees owns can’t make them have a posi-tion which let the company insiders take account in the shareholder committee and have enough amounts for their retirement pensions.This disparity in scale is the keypoint what is different between Tiwan and the U.S. ESOP. Althoygh small scale makes the adventage of ESOP decrease, it reduce lots of agency costs. To this day, there’re not any events which injure the interests of employees by ESOP. Never-theless, it doesn’t mean that ESOP in Taiwan is a issue which can be neglected. If we can establish an efficient legal system and extend the scale of ESOP, employees can obtain more company interests and have a security of their retirement life.In the opposite, after researching the problem of the U.S. ESOP, we can assume the culpably misconduct which will happen in the future and repair the house before it rains。Ｉ believe that a efficient ESOP can realize the ideal to solve the problem of uneven distribution of the wealth.