本文之主要目的，在於探究國籍法第十條對於歸化國民參政權限制之合憲性，並引入平等公民權之理念作為切入的角度。憲法第三條規定，具有中華民國國籍者即為中華民國國民，基於國民平等之原則，歸化者既已取得我國國籍，成為我國國民，理論上國家應將之與因出生而取得國籍者等同視之，不應有所差別待遇，然我國法制實務中卻存有對於歸化國民參政權等權利限制之規定，形成國民分等之現象，無異是造就一群次等國民，與平等公民權「歸屬」、「涵納」與「反排拒」之理念相違。 本論文的第一章，將先就本文之研究動機、研究範圍及論文架構等作說明。第二章首先分析傳統基本權理論在實踐上對基本權保障所產生之不足之處，其次則介紹「平等公民權」理念之發展及內涵，並試圖探尋此一理念在我國之憲法基礎及其價值所在，以建構平等公民權在我國憲法中之基本意涵，提供我國法在形塑基本權利保護時另一個不同的思考路徑。第三章則以「國籍」概念的界定與「國民」身份之取得，剖析國家與國民身份之連結關係，進而探究歸化國民與原來國民是否具有如何之本質上不同，而可賦予不平等之法律地位。第四章將分析參政權之概念內涵，突顯參政權之保障在民主憲政國家之特殊性及重要性，同時檢視平等公民權在我國憲法實務之實踐狀況。最後，則就國籍法第十條限制之最主要目的－「公務員忠誠」，探討此概念之具體內涵，以釐清歸化國民是否因其歸化國民之身分而在此一要件有本質上的欠缺。第五章則以「原始國籍之歧視」、「參政權在民主國家所表彰之重要性」作為基本方向，並在相關探討中融入「平等公民權」之理念，以檢討國籍法第十條規定之合憲性。第六章結論部份，則歸結本文研究與分析結果，從「國家認同」、「多元文化」、「平等」等憲法基本價值的宏觀角度，指出平等公民權在我國未來之興格方向，期望透過平等公民權的理論，發揮憲法涵納、歸屬的功能，達到發揮集體力量、凝聚社會，健全民主發展的目標。 / Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of China stipulates that any individual who possesses the nationality of the Republic of China is inherently the citizens of the Republic of China. Naturalized nationals, on the basis of equal membership, should accordingly be treated as equal citizens as the natural-born citizens. However, Article 10 of the Nationality Act stipulates that nationalized foreigners are deemed ineligible to serve as some particular Civil Servants within 10 years of nationalization. The discrimination between nationalized nationals and the natural-born citizens violates the principle of equal citizenship, which encompasses notions such as “all-inclusiveness” and “affiliation”. To begin with, this dissertation elucidates and discusses the signification of the main theme in the first chapter. In Chapter 2, I will introduce and analyze the conception of “equal citizenship” in an effort to construct the core meaning of equal citizenship in our Constitution. In Chapter 3, from the nationality and nationalization point of view, this research defines whether there should be differences in legal status between natural-born citizens and nationalized nationals. Entering Chapter 4, I will revisit the conceptions of “rights to political participation” and “loyalty”, the latter of which epitomizes the purpose of the Article 10 of the Nationality Act. I will also review the practical cases of equal citizenship from the constitutional enactment in Taiwan. In Chapter 5, this research conducts an investigation into the constitutionality of the aforementioned statue constitution. Finally, in concluding the research, I will summarize the surveys while giving a detailed account of the results, and indicate the potential development of equal citizenship in Taiwan’s legal systems.

宗教憲法因宗教本質上之先驗性與著重探討形而上之概念，故在概念定義上即有其困難。特別是我國宗教型態屬於普化、綜攝式之風貌與特殊之「游宗」宗教行為模式，且華人信仰態度屬多元包容型態，其信仰與世俗社會緊密結合，承襲傳統之價值理念與生活模式，呈現出一種遊走於寺院宮闕，著重信仰本質，忽略宗教形式，與宗教較無組織上聯繫，而僅有信仰上的來往，經由宗教儀式之操作來各取所需。由於多元、特殊之本土宗教型態，導致宗教定義更形困難，在宗教難以明確定義與宗教本質之超驗性、無法以科學理性論證特質之情況下，宗教自由之內涵界定與國家世俗法所生之扞格，國家行為之介入係屬侵害與否，此等議題相較於其他基本權而言則更形困難與難解。 我國宗教憲法的論述往往略過宗教學與社會學文獻之分析角度，僅單純直接從外國法的引進及法學層面的探討，忽略我國宗教型態面貌與外國宗教之差異性，反應在詮釋我國宗教憲法時，必須在本土宗教文化脈絡下討論，當援引國外學說案例之時，亦應做不同的法律解釋。 因此，本文嘗試從憲法學、宗教學、社會學三面向，來研究我國的宗教憲法內涵。從最根本屬於我國宗教風貌的瞭解，探討出符合我國宗教定義之解釋，再從比較法上觀察宗教自由的內涵與相關憲法案例的論證，再推導出我國宗教憲法之內涵，更進一步，去探討我國宗教平等、宗教寬容、宗教教育、政教分離等在憲法上所呈現的問題，與比較法上是否容有比附援引之處。最後，則檢視目前現行法規是否有背離憲法所保障的宗教自由之虞，並於文末對宗教團體立法提出些微建議。

本研究旨在探討是否是因女性意識的抬頭，導致台灣生育率下降，還是誠如Peter McDonald(2000)所言，由於婦女運動，導致社會允許女性在教育與就業上擁有等同於男性的機會，其稱之為個人取向制度上的性別平等，但在家庭方面，卻仍是維持男主外、女主內的傳統男性養家者模式思考，認為女性為家庭中的顧老者、護幼者，其稱之為家庭取向制度上的性別不平等，以致於女性要面對家庭照顧與工作壓力的雙重負擔，但這樣的現象並不會對女性的理想子女數造成影響，卻會使實際生育數下降；研究工具為2004年國民健康局「家庭與生育力調查」第九次調查已婚問卷資料，有效樣本數為2,865人。 研究結果發現，擁有較平等的性別角色態度之已婚育齡婦女，的確有較低的理想子女數與實際生育數，但依照描述性統計狀況來看，我國婦女並非不想生育，而是降低了自己的理想子女數與實際生育數；而我國家庭內家務分工不均的狀況，雖不符合研究者假設家務分工平等的女性有較高的實際生育數，但是深入探討發現，我國社會現況確實符合Peter McDonald(2000)所說，因為女性意識覺醒，促使社會處理個人在教育與就業上的制度性別平等，但我國社會家庭制度仍是維持傳統男性養家者模式，要求女性負擔家庭中絕大部分家務工作，欠缺顧老、護幼之協調工作與家庭照顧政策，以至於女性無法負擔工作與家庭衝突，因而降低了自己的生育數。 最後，研究者依研究發現嘗試對政府部門提出相關建議，供未來家庭政策與實務參考。 / The purpose of this study is to know the reason for fertility decline of the married women aged in 20-49 years in Taiwan. Whether it is due to the rise of feminist consciousness, or as the theory Peter McDonald (2000) discussed. Peter McDonald thinks that since women’s movement are springing up, the society allows women to have the same opportunities like men in education and employment. He called it as gender equal in individual-oriented institutions. But in fact, it is still maintaining the traditional male breadwinner model in the family. Female still plays the main role to take care children and elders. He called it as gender inequity in family-oriented institutions. Such institutions lead to fertility decline. The data used for this study were from 2004“the ninth investigation of family and fertility ability in Taiwan ”held by the research Institute of Bureau of health promotion department of health, Taiwan R.O.C. (sample size=2865). The main finding of this study is to prove that the married women in childbearing age, who has more egalitarian gender role attitude, will have lower ideal number of children and the actual number of births. Based on the general statistic condition in Taiwan, the situation are similar to Peter McDonald's thought. But there is something different, the unequal division housework is still within the family, which is not just like the researcher’s assumption: an equal division of housework women have a higher actual number of births. Despite the variable, the reason of fertility decline in Taiwan still confirms Peter McDonald’s theory. The awakening of women’s consciousness accelerate gender equal in individual-oriented and family-oriented institutions. But still, the traditional model asked women to undertake most parts of housework. The deficient in public welfare and family care policy will make female not be able to get the balance between work and family. Such institutions caused fertility decline in Taiwan. Finally, according to the study result, there are several suggestions which can be contributed to future policy and practical advice of family reference for government.

關鍵詞：非法移民、非法外來人口、收容、非刑事拘禁、人身自由、家庭權、平等權、法官保留、正當法律程序、異議、追究、提審 近年來，我國隨著人權國際化的發展，特別是在兩公約施行法公布之後，非法外來人口的收容問題成為熱門的人權議題之ㄧ，因此，引發作者研究的動機。 由於我國國情特殊，外來人口並不限於「外國人」或「無國籍人」，尚包含「無戶籍國民」、「大陸地區人民」、「香港居民」與「澳門居民」等類人士；次查，該等外來人口來臺，未必都有「移民」的意圖，為周延起見，因此，本文將「非法移民」一詞改稱為「非法外來人口」。 經查目前我國非法外來人口以「外國人」與「大陸地區人民」居多，故本文的研究對象乃聚焦於該兩種人士。另外，本文將收容對象限縮於「已入境」且「違反移民法規」的非法外來人口，並將「收容」定義為「主管機關為達成遣返任務，於遣返前，將非法外來人口暫時留置於收容處所的行政行為」，因此，非法外來人口收容之法律性質，為行政處分，屬遣返非法外來人口前之暫時性行政保全措施，不具裁罰性，故非屬行政罰，當然，更非屬刑事處分，自應與刑事訴訟法之「羈押」有所區別。 本論文計分「緒論」、「收容制度之外國借鏡」、「我國收容制度」、「受收容人基本權之保障與衝突」、「收容實務現況及其困境」、「我國收容在合憲性之探討」、「收容與行政救濟」及「結論與建議」等八章。 首先，由美、日及其他世界主要國家對於非法移民的收容制度觀察，發現大多數國家對於非法移民之收容並未採行「法官保留」制度，各國對於收容期限的規定也不一致，而隨著非法移民的日漸增多，近年各國對於非法移民的防杜、查緝與管理，亦較以前積極且嚴格。 我國收容制度主要分為對外國人（含一般外國人與外籍勞工）與對大陸地區人民兩大類，分別由入出國及移民法第38條、就業服務法第68條第4項及臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例（以下簡稱兩岸條例）第18條規範。就外國人與大陸地區人民收容制度之比較發現，二者其實大同小異。有關收容處分機關、法律性質、期間、處分方式、收容處所、對於已取得居留許可且具備一定要件之受處分人遣返前得召開審查會審查、給予當事人陳述意見之機會以及在收容處所內之處遇均相同；主要差異在於「收容要件」、「異議程序之有無」、「折抵刑期或罰金額數之程序」、「驅逐出國（強制出境）前，應否先經司法機關之同意」等程序，此外，大陸地區人民之強制出境，因二十年來，兩岸依循金門協議機制定期運作，尚未發生無法遣返問題，故兩岸條例並無類似外國人得因無法遣返而廢止收容處分之規範。 基本權利的保障，應遵守「層級化法律保留原則」與「重要性理論」，而法益衝突問題，則應依人權調整原理處理。受收容人之基本權利保障與法益衝突，亦應遵守前述法理加以處理，本文爰以受收容人之人身自由、家庭權與平等權三面向加以探討。 繼之，由收容相關處理流程、近4年外國籍與大陸籍受收容人之人數與平均收容天數、外國籍涉案與未涉案人數與比例、收容天數的比較等統計數據，呈現收容實務的現況，並簡要敘述收容行政所面臨的困境及主管機關移民署所做的具體改善措施（包含研擬入出國及移民法修正草案等）。 有關收容的合憲性，分為「法官保留與受收容人之人身自由」、「令從事勞務與工作權保障」、「收容期間與明確性原則」、「刑期折抵與羈押之錯置」、「概括條款之濫用」與「刑事收容之新構思」六方面論述，研究結果發現，現行收容相關規定之合憲性與適法性，尚無疑義。惟查，具體個案執行上，對於涉及刑案之受收容人的「延長收容」，發現有單純僅為順應司法機關犯罪偵審需要而為，並未嚴格審視收容是否具備「保全遣返必要性」之前提要件，與立法目的尚屬有間，恐有違反比例原則之虞。次查，現行規定中，「令從事勞務」一詞，容易引人誤解有侵害工作權之虞，且不符實務現況；而「收容天數得刑期折抵」的權宜措施，不但不能消除「以收容代替羈押」有侵害人權的疑慮，反而，更混淆了收容的法律性質，也讓司法機關有藉口將涉及刑案之非法外來人口「責付」行政機關「收容」，使問題更形嚴重；至於入出國及移民法第38條第1項第4款之概括規定，也容易使收容變相成為刑事追訴之保全機制。凡此種種，均待澈底檢討。 關於非法外來人口收容的行政救濟方面，本文則分別就「異議」、「訴願」、「行政訴訟」、「國家賠償」、「提審」與「追究」等面向觀察，研究發現受收容人提起行政救濟的案例不多，而就實務案例觀察，現行救濟程序對於受收容人之權益保障，確實有緩不濟急的現象發生，亟待改善。 本文對於現行非法外來人口收容法制，歸結如下： 一、非法外來人口收容，未採「法官保留」原則，並未違反憲法第八條之規定，其合憲性尚無疑慮。 二、現行非法外來人口收容法制，符合「公民與政治權利國際公約」相關規定，亦無適法性問題。 三、程序權保障部分 現行非法外來人口收容法制中，有關外國人與大陸地區人民之程序權保障規定未盡一致，且欠缺公正第三人介入審查之強制機制，應加以改善。 四、欠缺事後即時司法審查機制 非法外來人口收容，性質上屬「非刑事拘禁」，受收容人除得依憲法第8條第4項規定向法院聲請「追究」外，亦得依公民與政治權利國際公約第13條規定聲請法院「提審」，惟查，現行提審法、行政訴訟法、法院組織法等法規尚欠缺相關配套機制，有賴司法機關正視並積極建置。 五、刑事程序與行政程序應有所區隔 現行規定，將偵審中或待服刑之犯罪嫌疑人或刑事被告，納入得收容之對象，而遣返刑案被告前，又必須得到司法機關之同意，而收容延長之次數亦未明文限制，收容日數並得折抵刑期，不但再再混淆收容之法律性質，也是遭來「以收容代替羈押」批評的導火線。為切合收容之立法目的，提升人權保障，本文認為對於涉刑案之非法外來人口，應依「先刑事後行政」原則辦理，收容對象應限縮為單純待遣返之非法外來人口。 六、得命服勞役之規定，未切合實務現況，且容易引發侵害人權之誤解，應配合兩公約施行法之公布施行，儘速刪除之。 七、非法外勞收容之法源依據亟待修正 經查就業服務法迄未配合移民署之成立而加以修正，為符法制，減少疑義，勞政與立法機關應積極推動修法事宜。 至於本文對於非法外來人口收容法制之主要建議如下： 一、對於移民法、兩岸條例之修正建議 （一）收容對象應修正為以「單純等待遣返之非法外來人口」為限，刪除司法機關得將涉及刑案且尚待偵審之非法外來人口「責付」移民署收容之規定。 （二）刪除「遣返前應經司法機關同意」之規定。 （三）刪除「收容日數得折抵刑期或罰金」之規定。 （四）俟司法院建置「追究」或「提審」等事後即時司法審查機制後，刪除「收容異議制度」。 （五）於入出國及移民法修正草案中，增列大陸地區人民與港澳居民得「準用」外國人收容相關規定。 二、建議司法院研修提審法、法院組織法與行政訴訟法，建立非法外來人口收容「追究」、「提審」等事後即時司法審查機制；此外，為提升對於涉及刑案受收容人之權益保障，則建議司法院研修刑事訴訟法，針對觸犯微罪且有逃亡或逃亡之虞之犯罪嫌疑人或被告，增列「刑事收容」制度，以符刑事偵審實需。 三、建議勞委會儘速修正就業服務法相關法規，增列移民署查緝、收容非法外勞之法源依據，並建置完善之外籍勞工相關制度，減少非法外勞之發生率。 四、修正國家安全法第3條不合時宜之規定。 五、行政院應建置跨部會整合平台，釐定完整妥適之移民政策後，相關部會應配合修訂移民配套法規。 / Keywords: illegal immigration, illegal alien population, detention, liberty, family rights, equal rights, due process of law, dissent, legal investigation, Habeas Corpus In the recent years, Taiwan, following the international development in human rights and especially after the release of Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (hereby referred to as the “Two Covenants”) has started the popular discussion of illegal alien population detention. This paved the way to the subject of my thesis. Because of Taiwan's special political situation, the immigrant population is defined as not only "foreigners" or "stateless people", but also as "non-permanent nationals", "Mainland citizens", "Hong Kong residents", "Macao residents" and other categories of people. The foreign population that comes to Taiwan may not all have "migration intent”, so for the sake of being thorough, in this thesis, the term "illegal immigrants" will be changed to the broader term of "illegal aliens." As the current investigation shows illegal alien population is mostly from Mainland China and foreign countries, this study will focus on these two groups. Aliens that can be “detained” are limited in this study to illegal aliens that have entered Taiwan and have violated immigration laws. The term “detention" is defined as "an administrative act of keeping illegal aliens in temporary premises during pre-removal process until their repatriation”. The detention of illegal alien population is an executive sanction given prior to the repatriation of illegal aliens. It is a temporary executive protection measure, not a punitive one. It is not an administrative penalty and a non-criminal sanction. It differs from the term “custody” of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The thesis is divided into the following eight sections: 1. Introduction 2. Foreign-Based Detention System 3. Taiwan’s Detention System 4. Basic Human Rights of the Detained Aliens and Their Conflicts 5. Plight of Current Detention Practices 6. Constitutionality of Taiwan’s Detention System 7. Remedies for Detaining and Executive Practices 8. Conclusions and Recommendations In the first place, most of the detention systems in the United States, Japan and other developed countries in the world do not adopt the " Grundsatz des Richtervorbehaltes " system. The periods for detention around the world are also different. As the number of illegal immigration cases increases in these countries, the prevention, investigation and management of illegal immigration have also become more proactive and stricter than ever before. Taiwan's detention system can be subdivided into two major groups, foreigners (including foreign workers) and Chinese Mainlanders, overseen by the Immigration Act Section 38 of the Employment Service Law Article 68, Paragraph 4, and the Taiwanese and the Mainland Regional Relations (hereinafter referred to as Cross Strait Ordinance) Article 18. The detention system for foreigners and Mainlanders are essentially the same in Taiwan. They both share the same agencies for detention, regulations, detention duration, decisions, detention locations, resident alien pre-repatriation reviews, opportunities for legal defense, and detention treatment. The main differences between the two groups are: the requirements for detention, the presence or absence of objection procedures, the procedure for sentence set-off or penalty fines, the requirement of judicial consent prior to expulsion (forced exit) from the country, and other similar processes. In the last two decades, through the Golden Gate Agreement between Taiwan and Mainland China, there are regularly scheduled forced exits of Mainlanders from Taiwan. Repatriation of Mainlanders has not had any issues yet. That is why there has not been the need for regulations stopping their detention due to inability to repatriate them like in the cases of foreigners. The protection of fundamental rights should comply with "the hierarchy of legal reservation" and "the importance theory". The conflicts among legal interests should be adjusted in accordance with human rights principles. And the fundamental rights of the detained people should be addressed by the past legal principles. This thesis will cover three directions: people's personal freedom, family rights and equal rights. Through detention-related processes, the statistical comparisons between the number of detained aliens and average days in the detention centers of foreign nationals and Mainlanders, and the statistical comparison between foreign nationals involved and not involved in detention and the number of days in detention, one can see the current condition of detention and can describe the difficulties faced by the Administration and the implementation of specific improvement plans (including entry and exit information, drafts to amend the Immigration Act sent to the Legislature, etc.) by the various related authorities within the Department of Immigration. The constitutionality of the detention is divided into six discussion topics: "Grundsatz des Richtervorbehaltes and Detainee’s Personal Freedom", "Right to Work and Protection of that Right", "Clear Detention Period," "Difference Between Sentence Set-Off and Detention," "Abuse of General Terms" and "Constructive Thoughts of Criminal Custody". From my research, the constitutionality and applicability of existing regulations are clear. However, during actual prosecution of individual cases, detained aliens involved in criminal cases may "extend detention" and are tried simply as criminal cases, not evaluating beforehand the necessity of repatriation, whether there is a gap with the legislative goal and whether it violates the principle of proportionality. In current regulations, the phrase “serve labor sentence” easily leads to misunderstanding that there exists labor rights violation. And the implementation of right to off-set imprisonment by detention days not only does not eliminate the question of whether administrative detention replaces imprisonment has human rights violation, but it confuses the nature of detention laws. It also lets judicial agencies use criminal cases involving illegal aliens to be part of Administrative agencies’ responsibility, worsening the problem. The Border Entry and Exit and Immigration Act Article 38, Section 1, paragraph 4, also easily transforms detention into a mechanism of shielding against criminal prosecution. All this should be reviewed and analyzed in its entirety. Concerning the detained illegal aliens’ executive relief, this thesis will analyze from the points of "dissent", "petition", "executive action", "National Compensation", "Habeas Corpus" and "accountability". Studies found there are not too many cases of executive relief filed by the detained aliens. From observing the practical cases, the current relief program for the protection of the detained aliens’ rights is quite slow and needs improvement. The detention laws regarding the current illegal alien population can be summarized as followed: 1. Although the detention of illegal alien population does not to adopt "Grundsatz des Richtervorbehaltes " principle, it does not violate the provisions of Article 8 of the Constitution and there is no doubt of its constitutionality. 2. The current detention laws of illegal alien population fit the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," and related provisions, there is no issue of applicability. 3. The part related to the protection of process right In the current laws related to detention of illegal aliens, the sections related to foreigners and Mainlanders that guarantee the process right are not entirely consistent, and they lack the enforcement mechanism of requiring reviews by impartial third parties. This should be improved. 4. Lack of mechanism that requires immediate judicial review The detention of illegal alien population is a "non-criminal detention". Article 8 of the Constitution, Paragraph 4 provides that illegal aliens may ask the Court for investigation; or the alien may ask for a judicial habeas corpus according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 13. The current Habeas Corpus, Administrative Procedure Laws, Court Organization Laws and other related regulations still need supporting structure and that responsibility falls on the judiciary branch to address directly and actively. 5. The separation of criminal and administrative procedures Existing regulations consider aliens in the mist of investigation, alien suspects awaiting sentencing, and criminal alien defendants are possible subjects for detention. There must be judicial consent prior to repatriation of criminal case defendants. However the fact that limitation on the number of times that detention may be extended has not been clearly set and that the days in the detention may set off the imprisonment not only creates massive legal confusion, but also invites criticism that "detention is now replacing imprisonment". To meet the legislative goal of establishing detention laws to enhance human rights, this thesis argues for the illegal aliens involved in criminal cases should first be tried as criminals, then as administrative defendants. And detention laws should be limited to repatriation of illegal alien population only. 6. Regulations requiring serving labor sentence do not fit current reality or practices. This easily leads to misunderstanding of human rights violation. It should be deleted immediately. The regulations should be compatible with the release of the Two Covenants. 7. The laws related to illegal alien workers detention should be corrected The Employment Service Act is not consistent with the establishment of the Department of Immigration. The Act should be amended to meet the current legal system and reduce ambiguity. Labor Administration and Legislative agencies should proactively promote the amendment of this Act. The main recommendations for the legal system around detention of illegal aliens are: A. Suggested amendments for immigration laws and cross-strait ordinance (a) Candidates for detention should be amended to accommodate illegal aliens that are simply awaiting repatriation. The need for judicial involvement should be deleted. And illegal aliens involved in criminal investigation and hearing should be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Immigration. (b) The regulation requiring judicial consent prior to repatriation should be deleted. (c) The allowance for reducing length of sentence or fines by detention days should be removed. (d) After the Judicial Branch establishes investigation and habeas corpus and the judicial review, there should not be a separate detention system. (e) During border entries and exits and during immigration law amendments, more provisions for detaining illegal foreign aliens should apply to Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao residents. B. The Judicial Branch should analyze and edit current habeas corpus laws, court organization laws and administrative procedure laws in order to establish immediate judicial review process after illegal aliens enters custody. In addition, to improve the protection of the rights of the detaining aliens who are involved in criminal cases, the Judicial Ministry should review and edit criminal proceedings laws and add “criminal custody” system to meet current needs. C. The Council of Labor Affairs should amend as soon as possible the Employment Services Act and related regulations, to increase additional investigation by the Department of Immigration, detention laws related to illegal alien workers, and build a complete legal system for foreign workers in order to reduce cases of illegal foreign workers. D. Section 3 of the National Security Act is obsolete and should be amended to reflect current reality. E. The Executive Branch should build cross-agency integration platform, determining the suitable immigration policies, and relevant departments need to support the amended immigration regulations.

本文以視障者無法從事醫療按摩為研究目的，探討過去視障按摩制度，發現視障者處於社會結構之弱勢，因而產生接近憲法、法律保障權益之權利障礙。職是，本文參酌涉及身障者權益保障之國際規範，將其「社會模式人權觀點」引入，強調身障者「作為人」，應享有與他人相同之權利。並以英國2010平等法之平等權，對我國現行大法官平等權之解釋，加以反思，並以此建構我國憲法保障身障者權益之憲法框架。其後，本文參考英國視障物理治療師之促進制度，並建構「執業規範」與「促進措施」加以區分之醫療按摩一職。就其「執業規範」，依循我國對醫事人員進用管道之教育、考試以及執業加以建構；另就「促進措施」，則參酌英國促進措施之特色，即多元性、個別化、專家協助、促進措施間之連結性、權利救濟保障加以建構。並以醫療按摩作為視障者從事醫療行業之開端，希冀日後視障者亦能如常人般，得依其意願、興趣，自由選擇所欲從事之職業。

張灝先生曾指出中國近代思想具有一個轉型期。在這轉型期中，傳統概念資源在新時代命題下受到挑戰，使得中國知識分子必須在一個萬國之新世界秩序下，重新擘畫中國的位置，因此在中國要回應內在取向危機與外在列強的挑戰下，便啟動了思想轉型的旅程，上述這段從傳統到現代的發展過程，即稱之為中國近代思想史的轉型時代。「平等」觀念作為中國近代知識分子戮力追求的新價值，自然也經歷了這段思想轉型的過程；在轉型過程中隨著張灝先生所指出中國近代思想之普遍主義/特殊主義雙層建構現象，「平等」論述也呈現出普遍性平等與特殊性平等觀的雙重展演。本文即是欲從轉型時代的角度出發，觀察「平等」觀念從傳統發展至現代的過程中，如何在普遍性上成為中國近代知識分子於理想上的永恆追求；又如何在特殊性上滿足不同行動者於現實層面的生命–政治目的。追尋中國近代平等觀念在轉型時代中的發展，以及平等觀念如何回應中國近代三大兩歧命題：傳統/現代、理想/現實、政界/家界的矛盾與拉扯，即為本文之主要研究目的與論述核心所在。 本文在研究範圍上，主要以康有為、嚴復、章太炎等三人「平等」論述為主，而旁及中國近代其他知識分子的平等觀，以及與平等觀念發展相伴共生的其他相關近代論述。而在研究方法上，則採用綜合的觀念史研究法，一方面觀察宏觀面向的中國近代平等觀念史發展及其類型結構，一方面觀察微觀部分的論者個體「以言行事」(Illocutionary Act)與「以言取效」(Perlocutionary Act)的平等論述內在動機；而上述兼顧宏觀與微觀的綜合觀念史研究法，則必須透過數位人文技術(Digital Humanities)的協助才能達到研究方法循環，故本文研究即由綜合的觀念史研究法與數位人文研究法合作完成。而在研究結果上，本文分析了康有為、嚴復、章太炎等三人平等觀後，提出中國近代平等觀念的形成發展，依序有啟蒙平等、救亡平等、革命平等的歷時性發展特徵；以及三人皆各自代表了國學近代化下的儒家平等、道家平等、佛家平等觀之觀念類型。並在描繪出三人平等觀的特殊性後，更進一步地勾勒出三人平等觀的普遍性意義，即僅追求政界平等而不論家界秩序，呈現出一種有別於五四時期激進式三綱平等訴求的漸進式平等觀念形態，本文認為漸進式平等即是晚清平等觀念最為特殊之展演。 在本文研究貢獻上，則是對以往學者大都認為西方觀念一入中國，就立即挑戰了三綱，而呈現出三綱同時瓦解的主張進行商榷。本文認為以往學者忽略了晚清時期有一批知識分子，他們戮力於緩解家界倫常的平等革命而不贊成家界平等，這一行動群體的存在是前輩學者較為忽略的部份。因此本文透過康有為、嚴復、章太炎等三人，勾勒出中國近代知識分子中僅追求政界革命而反對家界革命一派的主張，並動態刻劃這個群體與主張三綱平等的無政府主義者之對詰過程，豐富清末民初歷史研究的厚度，即為本文之研究貢獻。 而在康有為以儒學本土資源完成啟蒙平等觀的建構、嚴復從道學出發建構救亡平等觀，以及章太炎從佛學會通革命平等觀的行動過程中，也標示了一個晚清階段國學再造的特殊意義，即：中國近代知識分子在意圖透過會通傳統本土資源與西方觀念，以追求啟蒙、救亡、革命目的下，也順勢促成了中國傳統國學的近代化發展。而中國近代平等觀念中所呈現出的國學近代化色彩僅為一個面向，中國近代知識分子乃是透過對於整個傳統國學觀念系統內涵的轉置，來強化國學與西方文明之間的對話能力，並完成國學從傳統邁入現代的再造歷程。故將來可從「國學近代化」的角度出發，觀察各種本土觀念如何透過與西學會通，完成中國近代思想觀念從傳統到現代的轉型過程，藉此更整全地掌握中國近代思想轉型之樣態，此即本文具有借鑑性之理論意義與推廣前景所在。

本論文共分為六章。第一章旨在概略介紹本論文之基本理念與架構，俾使讀者能初步瞭解本論文題目之爭點所在。 第二章針對內線交易在立法政策上應否予以禁止之議題，本章首先將釐清內線交易之基本內涵，並具體闡述內線交易對社會及經濟等各層面所帶來的影響與危害，以期對內線交易首先建立一個宏觀印象。進而分別從經濟與法律兩個不同層面，彙整不同學派提出之見解，並針對各種論調提出本文想法。最後說明我國對內線交易採取之立法政策及規範意旨。 第三章以美國法院判例之演變為討論中心，美國判例法下之內線交易理論歷經幾十年之建構與變動。最早在法制規範前，法院採取普通法下特殊情事理論作為禁止內線交易之論據；其次發展出「公開否則戒絕交易原則」，繼而逐漸延伸出「傳統信賴關係理論」、「訊息傳遞責任理論」以及「私取理論」，依據實際規範需要而對於內線交易行為主體範圍作適度地限縮與擴張。本章主要目的即在於，藉由詳細地分析美國判例法上深具代表性之案例，以及各種內線交易理論基礎之構成理由，進一步釐清內線交易行為主體之射程與規範現狀。另外亦將透過各種交易關係模式之分析，檢視理論之間的協調性，並提出本文意見。 第四章介紹「歐洲內線交易行為主體之規範」。1989年歐洲部長理事會頒佈《歐洲共同體內線交易協調指令》（89/592/EEC），此項指令列出內線交易規範之最低標準，要求其會員國在1992年7月1日前完成國內法之制訂，以實現指令規範內線交易之目標。2003年《內線交易及市場操縱之指令》（2003/6/EC），更針對現有內線交易指令進行修正，並新增市場操縱行為之規範，以取代89/592/EEC號指令。本章之目的，即在於介紹歐洲共同體針對內線交易行為主體之規範內容，進而探討內線交易之規範基礎。 第五章首先對於我國內線交易之規範作一概略性之介紹，並從規範架構探討我國內線交易理論之取向。第二節次就我國內線交易行為主體之規範範圍進行分析，並進一步探討理論與規範在實際應用上是否協調一致，抑或相互矛盾。第三節則歸結前兩節所論述之爭點，提出完整之規範建議。 第六章主要在於彙整前面各章之重點，並再一次強調本文立場與建議。

近年來，台灣的新移民子女人數遽增，其外籍父母又以東南亞籍最多，如何利用新移民家庭的母語資源，以及處理新移民子女特殊的教育需求，遂成為重要的課題，雙語教育措施可能是重要的途徑之一，目前已經藉由火炬計畫、外籍配偶子女輔導計畫等措施付諸實行。 為了探求雙語教育的憲法定位，本文擬先介紹美國、加拿大的雙語教育學理，將雙語教育區分為若干類型，簡介相關的教育心理學、教育社會學研究，以作為討論法律、憲法爭議的前提問題。 本文以美國法作為主要的比較觀察對象，對移民學生提供雙語教育不論是法律上或社會上，在美國都具有極大的爭議性，本文從歷史脈絡、法律沿革、法院判決中進行爬梳整理，探討美國憲法上雙語教育的定位，發現提供雙語教育可能會遭遇某些憲法上的障礙，人民也有可能依據美國憲法來請求雙語教育，另外有部分篇幅討論國際人權法與加拿大憲法的相關規定，作為比較解釋的參照。 比較法的參照可以給我國憲法若干啟示，本文認為，強勢的雙語教育比弱勢的雙語教育更有利，而憲法平等權之規定將會是新移民子女請求雙語教育的最佳途徑。

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

身心障礙者權利公約於2006年12月13日經聯合國大會通過，並於2007年3月30日開放各國簽署及批准，期許促進、保護及確保實現身心障礙者人權和基本自由充分、平等享有，並促進對身障者固有尊嚴的尊重。我國長久以來於身心障礙者相關法制僅著重於禁止歧視，缺乏使身心障礙者平等參與社會的努力，亦未以人權概念理解憲法增修條文所定協助身心障礙者自立發展的憲法委託，於2014年立法院通過並施行身心障礙者權利公約施行法後，各界普遍期待藉此公約得實質上促進我國身心障礙者平等參與社會。 身心障礙者權利公約明白地以無障礙及合理調整作為促進身心障礙者平等參與社會的重要原則，縱使無障礙的落實在我國仍有困難，不過對我國學理而言並不陌生，反觀合理調整不但未見於我國法律體系，亦於學理上罕有討論。本文旨在探討合理調整概念為何並釐清其審查模式，先行回溯合理調整過往落實於美國、歐洲人權公約及歐盟就業平等指令的經驗，再行探討身心障礙者權利公約所揭示的合理調整義務內涵，嘗試藉此規整合理調整的審查模式。最後，本文將嘗試提出在我國脈絡下應如何自立法及解釋等不同途徑落實身心障礙者權利公約意旨的初步建議。