University of Macau / Faculty of Law

本文主要就日本與我國關於工資債權保障制度作一整體之討論與比較。首先，就日本勞動基準法及民法、倒產法制關於勞動者之法定優先清償權利制度，分析該制度制定之理由、種類以及到目前為止的變遷過程。另一方面，則就日本工資支付確保法所規範之工資債權履行制度加以介紹，並分析該制度之基本問題、具體內容及相關配套措施。最後，藉由上開日本相關法制之討論，對我國現行相關制度進行分析研究與整理，以探討我國工資債權保護規範應有的制度設計及應注意的相關問題。

1979年1月1日，美國與我國斷絕外交關係後，為因應新的外交關係發展，美國依其「臺灣關係法」成立「美國在臺協會」處理對臺事務，我國也相應成立「北美事務協調委員會」做為對口單位，雙方並互派駐代表機構，建立了有別於傳統國際法的準外交關係；同時，另依據雙方協定及各自的國內法，賦予對方派駐機構及人員享有相當於政府間國際組織的特權與豁免。此種非邦交國及不被承認政府之準外交代表機構的特權與豁免，經過多年的實踐，其結果如何？為本論文研究與探討的重點。 雖然就協定的內容，我國與美方派駐機構及人員僅享有相當於在美國政府間國際組織的特權與豁免。然經由本研究發現，由於兩國各自的國內法及執行面的因素，雙方派駐機構及人員享有之特權與豁免，在實踐上是有差距的，我駐美館處及人員享有的特權與豁免並不及「美國在臺協會」駐華機構及人員。此外，是否給予不被承認國家派駐之外交代表機構特權與豁免及給予其主張國家豁免的權利，也完全是國家基於政治考量之主權行為，而非國際法之規範；同時，給予一個不被承認國家派駐外交代表機構相當程度的特權與豁免或給予主張國家豁免的權利，也並不會因此就造成國際法上國家或政府承認的情形。由於現今時空環境與國際情勢已有很大的變化，與當年兩國斷交時之氛圍，實不可同日而語。據此，本文亦依研究所得，綜整幾點淺薄意見，以供相關單位及人員參考，期能提升雙方派駐機構及人員的特權與豁免地位，並有效維護我國家及人民的權益。 / In recognizing the People’s Republic of China as the government of China in January 1979, the United States derecognized the government on Taiwan, “the Republic of China,” previously recognized as the government of China. As a matter of public international law, severance of diplomatic relations and derecognition of the government carried some potential important consequences to the ROC government including that it is not diplomatic and sovereign immunity in the US. However, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) was enacted by the US Congress in April, 1979 to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the US and the people on Taiwan. The TRA also created new, quasi-diplomatic agencies to enable the US government and the ROC government to communicate through a novel, non-diplomatic channel. Under the TRA, a Taiwanese official entity known as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) – previously known as the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA) – has been permitted to act as the unofficial instrumentality of the Taiwanese people, in Washington, D.C. Also the Washington–based TECRO has had an American counterpart in Taipei, named the “American Institute in Taiwan” (AIT), specifically established pursuant to the TRA as a non-profit, private corporation responsible for conducting or carrying out all US programs, transactions, and other relations with respect to Taiwan. Though it lacks official status, the AIT’s role in Taiwan closely resembles that of a diplomatic mission. Agreements between the two quasi-diplomatic agencies authorized by their respective government accord the two agencies and their staff the privilege and immunity similar to that of the public international organization. The purpose of this research is to analyze the privileges and immunities of the quasi-diplomatic agencies, and also give a detailed examination of the practice over thirty years on both sides. Through this research, we found that there are differences in practice between two sides due to different internal legal system and enforcement. On the other hand, we also found that the public international law and international circumstances give considerable latitude to the improvement of the privileges and immunities of the quasi-diplomatic agencies.

80年代，我國在解嚴之時，民主化運動與言論自由的保障相得益彰，幾乎同一時期，司法院大法官作成釋字第187號解釋，對於特別權力關係敲響第一記警鐘，大法官逐步正視特別權力關係理論對於權利保障與憲政制度的影響，在司法實踐上似乎邁向突破特別權力關係理論長久以來的桎梏。然探其實際，在大法官與學者相繼對於特別權力關係理論加以解構後，公務員仍未能如同民主化後的一般人民一樣享有「充分且必要」的言論自由。 在面對公務員言論爭議的案件中，我國現行法制透過概括的職務義務對於公務員言論自由施加限制。在具體個案的審查中，實務上顯然並不認為公務員享有與一般人民相同的言論自由，就公務員言論應有的界限與限制的標準，也未建立可茲遵循的審查原則。造成此一現象的原因或許在於特別權力關係尚未真正地被揚棄，學者與實務對於公務員「有權利即有救濟」的闡述，過於囿限於「服公職權」，並且在檢討、揚棄特別權力關係的過程中，仍停留在形式法治國的概念，忽略了基本權利實質限制的檢討。 本文借鏡美國法制的發展，嘗試為我國公務員言論自由的審查提出基本原則。在衡量公務員言論自由保障時，應考量「公務員言論的類型」與「公務員的職務內容」，並以「言論表達的時間與地點」與「言論的公開程度」作為輔助判斷因素，衡酌公務員言論對於政府制度目的的影響。在此一審查模型下，並非所有的公務員言論皆受到一致的限制。 法哲學家Dworkin教授曾經說過，在言論自由的困難案件中，法律人必然需要釐清「憲法為何保障言論自由」這個根本性的問題，才能決定言論自由的困難案件應該如何解決。期待本文的觀察建議可以使得實務在審查公務員言論自由的案件時，意識到公務員言論可能具有的公益面向—使政府資訊自由地流向公眾，促進政府課責與民主審議—從而能夠適當的權衡相關利益，賦予公務員言論應有的保障。 / In the 1980s, as the Martial law was lifted, the level of freedom of speech enjoyed by the people was increased alongside with Taiwan’s democratization movement. In the same period, the Constitutional Court rendered the landmark Interpretation No.187 against the theory of special power relation (besonderes Gewaltverhaltnis, the Theory). The Court was concerned with the negative effect of the Theory on constitutionally protected rights and liberties. However, even though the Court had since made several similar interpretations and seemed to gradually move toward abandoning the Theory entirely, Taiwan’s public employees have not yet been able to enjoy the same level of freedom of speech as the general public has. Under the current legal system, civil servants’ freedom of speech was restricted by broad and generalized professional duties specified in the Public Functionary Service Act. In addition, courts do not take the view that public employees and the general public enjoy the same level of freedom of expression, and do not establish a clear principle to determine what public employees can or cannot speak. Perhaps it is because the Theory has lingered on. Or it is because in the process of abandoning the Theory, courts have paid too much attention on the right to holding public offices and ignored other rights, such as the right to free speech. Learning from the public employee speech jurisprudence in the United States, this thesis tries to articulate some basic principles when reviewing cases concerning civil servants’ freedom of speech. This thesis believes that not all public employee speech should be restricted and suppressed. In deciding whether to protect civil servants’ freedom of expression, courts should consider two main factors: “the type of the speech involved” and “the responsibilities of the civil servant’s position.” In addition, factors such as “the time and place of the speech” and “degree of openness of the speech” should also be taken into account when deciding whether public employee speech has negative impact on the government in fulfilling its responsibilities. Professor Ronald Dworkin, an American legal philosopher, once remarked that in hard cases, “lawyers and judges must try to find a political justification of the First Amendment that fits most past constitutional practice and also provides a compelling reason why we should grant freedom of speech.” The thesis hopes that the observation and suggestion made in this research can help courts be aware of the public interests in protecting public employees’ freedom of speech—ensuring free flow of information from the government to the public and improving government accountability and democratic deliberation. Then can the courts better balance the relevant interests and ultimately afford proper protection to public employee speech.