近年來，病人自主權意識高漲，醫療糾紛頻傳，每個醫師無不戒慎恐懼，而醫療爭議之處理模式與醫師專門職業之道德責任都受到社會高度的檢視及廣泛的討論。事實上，醫學的進步需要依賴不斷地創新與大膽地試驗研究，因此人體試驗相關的問題也受到大眾的關注。 由於人體試驗所面對的是複雜而變化多端的情境，所以參與人體試驗之受試者將會面對甚而遭到危險或傷害。我國人體試驗的相關法規，多散置於醫療法、醫師法、藥事法、藥品優良臨床試驗準則、藥品優良臨床試驗規範等，除了無整體之法規範外，且多為行政法令，在法律位階上均較低，加上衛生署主管機關無法落實對試驗過程中之管理與監控，因此參與人體試驗之受試者往往會受到損害而無法得到應有的保障。因為人體試驗的特殊性與常規醫療是不同的，如果僅由既有的傳統醫療糾紛處理方式，如醫療契約於受試者的關係、侵權行為於違反保護他人法律的標準、醫療倫理不傷害原則於人體試驗規範等，這些恐怕都是必須的，但是仍嫌不足。 本文參考國外人體試驗規範包括紐倫堡法則、赫爾辛基宣言、美國貝爾蒙特報告、美國聯邦法規、CIOMS國際生物醫學研究人體試驗倫理準則、國際醫藥法規協和會之優良人體臨床試驗準則等等，然後針對個別議題如受試者保護之告知後同意，受試者權益之醫療契約關係及侵權行為責任，受試者受傷害之損害賠償責任，作一整理分析與檢討，並進一步配合我國現行法律制度與社會倫理規範做出建議。 本文共分為七章，分別為「序論」、「人體試驗」、「人體試驗告知後同意法則」、「國外人體試驗之民事責任」、「我國人體試驗之民事責任」、「人體試驗之賠償責任及機制」及「結論」。 / In recent years, patients’ consciousness of self-determination has raised and many medical disputes occurred; doctors feel discomfort and developed the high intensity of self-defense. The solution of medical malpractice and professional liability of doctors have became the major public issues and received many discussions. We are quite sure that the medical progress is based on innovative and intensive clinical study on human subjects. Under this background, the topics on human subject research have been attracted more attention than ever. Since the situations in human research are complex and variable. If relative clinical standards and legal protections are not adequately provided, the human subjects involved in clinical researches may face many risks and even injured. In Taiwan, we don’t have a systemic regulations on human subject research, all regulations are distributed in different code, act, proceeding, and agreement. Furthermore, the government does not have enough resource and manpower to monitor or inspect the processes of human research, the issues of protection of human rights and benefits of testee has raised serious concern. The human subject research is not exactly the same as the clinical medical treatment, it’s impossible for legislators or institutions to regulate research through traditional medical regulations such as medical ethics doctor-involved informed consent, medical agreement (contract), tort laws, and compensation for injury. In this thesis, firstly, I reviewed the most important publications related to human subject research include Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, USA’s Belmont Report and Code of Federal Regulations, CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, and ICH-GCP; secondly, focus on each specific topics especially the value of informed consent, the importance of medical agreement, the liabilities of torts and the policy of compensation for injury. Finally, I’ll make my comments and suggestions to the health care authorities to update and implement new regulating policies to protect human rights of subjects involved in clinical researches. My thesis is restricted to discuss the impact of civil liability on human subjects research focus on drug clinical trial and divided into seven chapters as follows: “Introduction”, “Human subject research”, “Principles of informed consent”, “International liability of civil law on human subject research”, “Liability of Taiwan civil law on human subject research”, “Policy of compensation for injured human research subject” and “Conclusion”.

保險契約中之停效與復效制度，為有別於一般民事契約之特殊制度，其目的在使一時忘記或無力繳交續期保費，不會立即遭到保險人終止保險契約，要保人並得在一段復效期間內，於符合一定條件下，恢復原保險契約之保障。至於復效時必須符合之條件，各國規定不盡相同，但通常包括下列項目：(1)復效申請書(2)提供被保險人之可保證明 (3) 繳清欠繳保費(4) 保險人之同意。我國過去因舊保險法、施行細則及示範條款三者間，對復效應具備之要件規範並不一致，引起學說之重大爭議，法院判決亦常見不同之判決結果，致保險實務上糾紛不斷。 為解決保險市場之脫序現象，九十六年七月十八日修正之保險法，乃對保險法第一百十六條作大幅修正，明確規定如下：「停止效力之保險契約，於停止效力之日起六個月內清償保險費、保險契約約定之利息及其他費用後，翌日上午零時起，開始恢復其效力。要保人於停止效力之日起六個月後申請恢復效力者，保險人得於要保人申請恢復效力之日起五日內要求要保人提供被保險人之可保證明，除被保險人之危險程度有重大變更已達拒絕承保外，保險人不得拒絕其恢復效力。」新法對保險市場新秩序之重建應有重大助益，但新法也衍生一些新的問題，諸如，可保證明之意義及範圍、要保人提供不實可保證明時應如何依法處理、危險程度有重大變更已達拒絕承保程度之認定標準及核保標準、保險人有無要求附條件同意復效之權利，以及復效生效時點如何認定…等疑義，均有待釐清及解決。本研究廣泛蒐集及比較各國立法制度，並整理我國實務判決重要爭點，剖析新法對保險市場產生造成之影響，並對新法產生之新問題提出本文意見與建議，以作為日後研擬修法時之參考。 / The suspension and reinstatement system of insurance contracts is a specific system different from other civil contracts. Its purpose is to prevent proposers, who forget to or are unable to pay premium other than the initial premium, from being terminated of insurance contracts by insurers. The proposer may reinstate the original policy within the time period for applying for reinstatement and when conforming to certain terms. Regarding the terms of reinstatement, the contents are varied among countries but usually include the following items: (1) a reinstatement application; (2) evidence of insurability; (3) prepayment of any overdue premium; and (4) approval of the reinstatement application. Before the Amendment to the Insurance Act in 2007, the terms of reinstatement were stipulated differently among the Insurance Act, the Enforcement Rules for the Insurance Act and the Model Provisions for life Insurance Policies. As a result, there were serious debates of schools, while different judgments delivered by courts of law for similar cases. Thus disputes were continuously happened in terms of insurance practices. Resolving the disorderly phenomenon in the insurance market, Article 116 of the Insurance Act was amended on 18 July 2007 as the following: “A suspended insurance contract shall be reinstated after the premium, the interest stipulated in the insurance contract, and other expenses are paid, provided that such payment is made within six months from the date of suspension. Where the proposer applies for reinstatement more than six months after the date of suspension, the insurer may require that the proposer furnish proof of insurability for the insured, and the insurer may not refuse reinstatement unless the insured's degree of risk has undergone a change that is sufficiently material as to justify refusal to insure”. The amended Act contributes the rebuilding of the order of the insurance market. However, it also produces some new problems. For example, the meaning and scope of the evidence of insurability, how to deal with the reinstatement when the proposer providing lapsed evidence of insurability, the approval and underwriting when the insured's degree of risk has undergone a change that is sufficiently material as to justify refusal to insure, whether the insurer has the right to require some conditions for its approval of reinstatement, and how to recognize the effective time of reinstatement. All these problems still remain unsolved. The study widely collects and compares different countries’ legislative systems, gets together the important points in dispute, analyzes the amended Act’s impacts on the insurance market, and presents opinions and recommendations, which could be reference for amending the Act in the future, on these new problems caused by the amended Act.

紐倫堡法典之後，生物醫學研究中人類受試者的處境開始受到關注。為避免受試者遭到濫用，進而保障其權益，國際間陸續頒佈與人體研究受試者保護相關之倫理規範，而各國亦逐步將倫理規範落實為國內法規，作為管制手段。涉及受試者之人體研究倫理規範與法規中，自紐倫堡法典以降，逐步確立以告知後同意以及倫理審查為核心，建立確保受試者自主權之管制機制，作為平衡受試者與研究者兩方在知識與處境上的不平等的關係。 本文以當代生物醫學上告知後同意法則發展，以及人體研究受試者保護之相關行政管制為取徑，首先，考察人體研究所涉及的法律、倫理的爭議，以及相關倫理規範發展。進而探討告知後同意在當代生命倫理與醫療法律之意義、內涵，以及如何實踐於生物醫學人體研究上作為確保受試者自主權之手段及所遭遇之限制。其次，分析並比較美國、荷蘭以及我國受試者保護之法規體系，並進一步討論其特色與優、劣。最後，探討我國人體研究受試者保護法規範之現況與不足，並提出法律修正上的建議。 / Since Nuremberg Code, the biomedical researches involving human subjects, based upon the informed consent and human autonomy, has drawn the increasing public attention. The related normative restrictions as well as legal regulations have been regarded as a significant way to abuse-avoidance and interest-protection on the part of human subjects involved. Thus, it becomes a confirmed tendency that the constitution of normative and legal foundation with a consideration of informed consent and ethico-medical review can ensure the human autonomy and strike a balance between the researchers and human subjects. In this thesis, we focus on the development of informed consent and the related normative/legal regulations. Several issues which we will deal with can list as follows: firstly, the trajectory and its legal/ethical controversies, with which the biomedical researches involving human subjects develop and revolve, will be clarified, so as to investigate the ethical/legal implications of informed consent and human autonomy. Secondly, by making a comparison of legal regulations among the United States, Holland and Taiwan, we will illustrate the advantages and drawbacks that different legal systems have on the biomedical researches involving human subjects. At the last part of this thesis, several possible suggestions will be provided to the future legislation on the biomedical researches involving human subjects.

保險契約為民事契約之一種，法律關係從成立、生效至終止階段與一般民事契約大致相同，但是有一點效力狀態為保險契約所獨有，亦即「停效」與「復效」狀態，為何保險法上會有停效與復效之制度？其制度目的為何？理論基礎何在？法律性質為何？這些我國法上論述較少，故必須從外國法之資料文獻去分析探討，本文主要分析美國及日本實務及學說，希望能找出一套符合法體系一貫性，並能兼顧保險契約當事人權益之理論架構。 本論文首先從實際發生的一件保險理賠糾紛，點出目前人壽保險契約停效、復效法制之問題。其次，分析保險契約效力層次有幾種，而停效復效之狀態位在哪一個層次。第三，從美國法及日本法角度定義停效及復效之法律性質。第四，介紹壽險契約停效之原因及其法律狀態，進一步討論這三種停效原因相關法律問題。第五，從美國法院判決去分析復效的要件。第六，討論壽險契約復效之相關爭議問題。例如，保險人終止權行使期間之限制、申請復效是否須保險人同意？要保人申請復效時，是否負告知義務？復效與不可抗爭條款、復效與自殺免責條款等等。文末，就復效之相關問題及現行保險法規定，提出個人之拙見及修正條文。

因為醫病互動關係的改變，病患自主權在經過歐美數十年來的覺醒與詮釋，並定位於不論是人性尊嚴或是隱私權內涵中之憲法層級，以及在告知後同意於近二十年來引進國內並蓬勃發展之後，病患的自主決定權在現今醫療過程中已經受到相當的重視。青少年也因接近成人的年齡及成熟度，在法律及臨床實務上也逐漸肯認其對於自身的醫療決定擁有自主決定權。然而，兒童不論在法律或是社會觀念之中，均被認定為能力尚未成熟，傳統上認為必須由父母代替其做醫療決定。可是在作者身為一位臨床兒科醫師的臨床實務經驗當中，許多病童往往能表達自己對於醫療決定甚至是臨終決定的自主意見，卻不受到父母或其他成年代理人的採納。 因此，本文將從臨床經驗出發，將所發現許多兒童有能力決定、以及父母無法做出符合兒童利益決定的案例，提出作為本文探討的思考起源。本文主要鎖定未成年人中未滿12歲的兒童進行討論，排除許多文獻早已熱烈討論的青少年人；另外因為立法例上並未賦予未成年人擁有「自主權」，故本文暫不深究兒童法律上的自主權利，而是以探討兒童實質上的「自主性」作為探討的主軸，並以此為未來法律發展的基礎。 本文將首先從「醫病關係的演進」開始，探討一般性「病患自主決定權」之倫理與法律。醫學倫理上涉及包括「生物醫學倫理四原則」以及「告知後同意」；多數國家也將「自主決定權」在法律上定位為憲法層級之人權保障。聯合國兒童權利公約則為現今國際上兒童人權維護的重要指引，也是對於兒童一般自主權正當性的重要依據。至於兒童的自主決定與其決定能力相關，也涉及父母代理決定的討論，故從法律上對於父母子女關係及未成年人保護的討論出發，探討代理決定時的最佳利益判斷，思考兒童醫療決定的問題及衝突，以及在不同年齡適合該年齡得以決定的事項。 在兒童醫療決定上，難題包括為何要重視兒童自主、何人有權決定、如何決定等等，在此議題受到各國重視並不斷發展之下應如何運作。在本文中主要參考了美國以及英國的發展經驗以及建議，提出對於臨床操作的看法。本文認為，可以用兒童醫療「表意權」的行使作為對兒童自主性的肯認，從兒童決定能力的判斷開始，對於具有決定能力的兒童表達其合理意見應充分尊重；若是缺乏決定能力的兒童，則在考量其最佳利益後由父母代理其做出醫療決定。醫療人員基於必須對於病童負責的角色及責任，亦應檢視父母決定是否合理，適時地介入決定以維護兒童最佳利益。 至於在兒童的最佳利益的判斷上，除了要考慮所面對的病況以外，還需要針對兒童未來生理發育和心智發展的影響，整體考量其未來的生活品質；對於臨終的兒童，則應考量是否得到有尊嚴的死亡，此與成年人的思考並無相左。最後，本文將進一步探討較為特殊的臨床狀況，包括面對重症以及急症的病童應如何操作及思考，並重新檢視本文所提出之實際臨床困難案例，建議較為適合的做法，以作為更多臨床個案判斷的參考指引。 / Patients' awareness of self-determination has raised and their rights have been taken into account in clinical consideration because of the change of doctor-patient relationship in recent decades. The right to autonomy was highly positioned at the constitutional level no matter it is contained in the concept of human dignity or the right of privacy. It is also highly valued after “the doctrine of informed consent” was introduced into our country with vigorous development in recent years. Because adolescents’ age and maturity approach adults, they have been recognized to have sufficient ability and right to make their own medical decisions as well as adults. Children, in the general idea of the society, are concerned not to have sufficient decision making ability and therefore need their parents’ help to make their own medical decisions. However, from clinical experiences, many children could not only express their autonomous opinions but even have the ability to consent to their medical treatments, including life-saving treatments. Unfortunately, children’s opinions were usually ignored, and sometimes their parents could not make decisions in their best interest. This study will discuss the patient autonomy of children whose ages are under 12 years old. We acknowledge that children do not have legal “right” to autonomy but they still have their own autonomous expression. The ethical and legal bases of patient autonomy are firstly illustrated, including “the four principles approach to bioethics”, “the doctrine of informed consent”, the legal status of “the right to autonomy” at the constitutional level, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which is an international guide to children’s human right. Children’s autonomy is closely related to their decision-making capacity or competence and their age. Furthermore, surrogate decision making plays an important role in children’s affairs. When there is a conflict between the parents and children, the principle of best interest of children should be the leading concern. Regarding the medical decision of children, difficult problems are: why children’s patient autonomy is vital, who has the right to decide, and how to make a decision. I have reviewed the experiences and suggestions from concept leading countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. I proposed my own viewpoint and suggest some guidelines on the clinical decision process. My opinion is that children’s right to express should be taken as the confirmation of children’s autonomy. For the children with decision making capacity, we should fully respect his rational decision; for the children without it, parents could make the decisions according to the children’s best interest. Medical staffs, including doctors and nurses, also need to reexamine the parents’ decisions suitable for children’s best interest. At the end of the thesis, I re-examine the clinical cases proposed at the beginning of this thesis, to present my resolution to the cases as guides for future clinical situation.

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.

在強調「經營與所有分離原則」之股份有限公司法制下，股東會並非得就公司一切業務執行事項作成決議之「萬能機關」。且由於經營與所有之分離，出席股東會、行使表決權可謂係未被選任為董事、監察人之一般股東最基本之權利，亦即一般股東乃係藉由出席股東會、作成股東會決議，以形成股東之意志並參與公司之經營決策。為避免股東出席股東會、行使表決權之權益遭受不當侵害，同時為求股東會決議能正確、適法反應股東意志，並作為公司開展相關後續法律關係之正當基礎，公司法對於股東會決議存在瑕疵原因時設有相應之規範，以定其決議效力。從而，如何正確理解公司法中股東會決議瑕疵效力之相關規定，即值研究。 而在探討股東會決議瑕疵效力之相關問題前，必須先行探究股東會之法律地位與權限。於此，本文係將重心置於公司法第202條的解釋與適用。基於條文所使用之文字，本文試圖提出公司事務之類型化區分，重新建構股東會決議事項之範圍。易言之，即係將公司事務之屬性先予區分為「業務執行事項」與「非業務執行事項」，並視該事項「是否為公司法或章程規定由股東會決議」之事項，分別探討股東會是否係得就各該事項作成決議之意思決定權限主體。 在我國法制下的股東會決議瑕疵效力規範，僅有「決議得撤銷」與「決議無效」二種決議瑕疵類型。惟伴隨著學說與實務對於「決議不存在」此一概念之發展，已儼然形成我國法制關於股東會決議瑕疵效力規範之「三分化」體系。而由於此三種決議瑕疵類型在法律上係相互排斥的概念，因此某一具體之決議瑕疵原因僅能歸類為其中一種決議瑕疵類型，否則將導致法律適用關係之混沌不明。 在「決議得撤銷」部分，得撤銷者應以受到召集程序或決議方法瑕疵影響之決議為限。考量決議形成過程之公正性要求以及決議可能產生之影響，應認為無論是否為有表決權股東，亦不論其權益是否受到決議瑕疵原因之侵害，只要是股東，均得提起撤銷決議訴訟。而為了貫徹「禁反言」法理，出席股東應適用民法第56條第1項但書之規定，於股東會當場表示異議後始能取得撤銷訴權。至於未出席股東，則應認為不論其是否已合法收受股東會召集通知，均得提起撤銷決議訴訟。又，在決議作成時尚非股東之人，若符合「訴權繼受」要件者，亦得於受讓股份後提起撤銷決議訴訟。惟此「訴權繼受」之概念，解釋上其受讓人並不包括「已出席但未當場表示異議之股東」，以免減損民法第56條第1項但書規定之規範功能。而法院於審理撤銷決議訴訟時，雖有視個案情節決定是否駁回訴訟之裁量權限，然法院須對其發動裁量權限之要件寬嚴掌握得宜，以免過於忽視公司法允許股東提起撤銷決議訴訟之規範意旨。 在「決議無效」部分，由於2000年民事訴訟法之修正，將確認訴訟之標的由「法律關係」擴及至「法律關係基礎事實」後，任何符合提起確認訴訟要件之人均得提起「確認決議無效訴訟」以主張決議無效。從而過去認為不允許提起此一訴訟之主張，即應予揚棄。 在「決議不存在」部分，由於其與「決議得撤銷」之瑕疵原因僅係程度上之差別，雖然二者在法律上係屬截然可分之概念，但在具體事例之歸類定性上，有時並非容易，致使實務與學說上產生若干爭議。就此，尚有待實務與學說將其瑕疵原因予以類型化，或由立法者將其瑕疵原因予以法制化，以杜紛爭。 又，關於決議瑕疵具體之爭議問題，本文綜合整理7種於判定決議效力時尚有疑義之股東會決議瑕疵類型，歸納、分析實務與學說之看法，並提出己見。