University of Macau / Faculty of Law

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

我國自民國77年於大眾捷運法首創徵收取得區分地上權立法例後，即隨之於獎勵民間參與交通建設條例、促進民間參與公共建設法及土地徵收條例訂定徵收取得區分地上權條文，對公共建設穿越用地之取得有相當大之助益，但由於法制並非完備，致在徵收取得區分地上權補償方面產生了一些問題，此不僅影響公共建設穿越用地取得之順利進行，更有害憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，故本文即從財產權保障觀點，以完全補償理念為核心，對這些補償問題加以探討，並提出建議，以建構完善的徵收取得區分地上權補償制度，及做為政府修改相關法令之參考。 本文共分五章，第一章緒論，說明本文研究動機、研究目的與研究方法、研究範圍與內容。第二章財產權保障與損失補償，分析徵收取得區分地上權對財產權所造成之損失，並闡述財產權保障與損失補償之真諦，以奠立本文後續探討充分彌補被徵收人損失之方法。第三章我國徵收取得區分地上權補償制度之探討，對我國徵收取得區分地上權制度、補償法源及補償內容加以探討。第四章徵收取得區分地上權補償問題之探討，分別就補償性質問題、補償範圍問題、補償標準問題、補償費發放問題四方面加以探討問題之所在，並研擬適當解決方法。第五章結論與建議，對徵收取得區分地上權補償法制提出建議。 / After originating the legal case of the expropriation of space superficies in Mass Rapid Transit Law in 1988, the government soon legislated the clauses for expropriating the space superficies in Statute For Encouraging Private Sector Participation In Transportation Construction, Promoting Private Participation In Public Works Law, and Statute For Expropriating Land. It’s helpful to obtain the lands which public works pass through over or under, but some questions about the compensation for the expropriation of space superficies result from the legal system is not complete enough. This not only affects to smoothly obtain the lands which infrastructure need, and will be more harmful for the meaning of the people's property rights which safeguarded by constitution. Therefore this research takes complete compensation as a core and discusses these questions of compensation from the viewpoint of safeguarding the property rights. Finally, it hopes to make propositions for constructing a faultless system of compensation for the expropriation of space superficies and can be as the reference for government when she revises the correlation law. This research is divided into five chapters. The first chapter is introduction, which shows the motive, goal, method, scope, and content of this research. The second chapter is the indemnification for property right and the compensation for loss, which analyses the losses of property rights caused by the expropriation of space superficies, and elaborates the true meaning of the indemnification for property right and the compensation for loss in order to establish the method for fully making up the losses of the rightful recipients in the following discussion of this research. The third chapter is the discussion for compensative system of the expropriation of space superficies, which discusses the system of the compensation for the expropriation of space superficies, the legal origin of compensation, and the content of compensation. The fourth chapter is the discussion for the questions of compensation for the expropriation of space superficies, which discusses four aspects of questions including the characters, scopes, criterions, and payment of compensation and draws up suitable solutions. The fifth chapter is conclusion and suggestion, which proposes suggestions for the compensative system of the expropriation of space superficies.

私有土地，如供公眾通行多年而成為道路者，該土地已因時效完成而成立公共地役關係，該私人雖仍保有所有權，但其使用權之行使應受限制，不得違反公眾通行之用，通說將該因通行之事實所形成之道路，稱為既成道路或既成巷道。既成道路存在公用地役關係之限制，致土地所有權人無從自由使用、收益，對於所有權人所受損失，是否應予補償？早期行政法院判決採取否定見解。直到85年大法官作成釋字第400號解釋，宣示國家應就既成道路辦理徵收給予補償。對於既成道路應予徵收補償已無爭議，但是，行政機關迄今未能提出具體有效之解決措施。 囿於既成道路補償問題遲遲未能解決之現況，民間嘗以捐地抵稅作法因應，導致稅基流失；既成道路所有權人，也以釋字第400號解釋為基礎，向道路管理機關請求辦理徵收補償，道路管理機關通常均以財源拮据、暫無徵收計畫等理由回應。人民遭拒絕後向行政法院提起訴訟，行政法院一貫見解均為：人民無請求國家徵收其土地之公法上請求權，道路管理機關非徵收核准及補償金發給機關，對之提起訴訟被告適格欠缺，釋字第400號解釋僅為立法指針不得作為請求徵收之法律基礎，補償金以徵收處分存在為前提，無徵收處分自不得請求補償，不得以平等原則、憲法財產權保障規定作為請求權基礎…… 等理由駁回人民請求。然上開理由是否適切？人民應選擇哪種訴訟類型才能達到權利救濟之目的，引發本文寫作之動機。 從憲法財產權保障觀點而言，財產權受到國家公權力之干涉時，應就財產權之權能減損程度，判斷是否達到「公用徵收」程度，或僅是「財產權內容之確定與限制」。又法規範對財產權內涵之確定與限制，如未侵犯財產權之本質內涵，則屬財產權之合憲限制，構成財產權人之社會義務；然而財產權人所受之限制程度，倘逾越財產權人所可忍受之限度而構成特別犧牲時，國家應給予適當之補償，始合乎憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，此為「應予補償之財產權限制」。釋字第400號解釋指出：「既成道路符合一定要件而成立公用地役關係者，其所有權人對土地既已無從自由使用收益，形成因公益而特別犧牲其財產上之利益，國家自應依法律之規定辦理徵收給予補償。」宣示既成道路所有權人所受限制程度構成特別犧牲，其法律效果應為損失補償。至於，徵收補償或其他補償方法均係填補特別犧牲損失之補償方式，既成道路所有權人應可擇一行使「徵收補償」及「損失補償」兩種請求方式。 現行行政訴訟制度，分為撤銷訴訟、課予義務訴訟、一般給付訴訟及確認訴訟等類型，惟既成道路所有權人提起確認訴訟類型較為少見。從其他類型訴訟的判決理由分析，既成道路所有權人提起撤銷訴訟及課予義務訴訟，無法達到權利救濟之目的，而應提起一般給付訴訟類型，以需地機關為被告，請求需地機關提出徵收計畫書，向內政部申請徵收之應為事實行為訴訟；或以需地機關為被告，請求給付損失補償金訴訟，兩種聲明是可行的請求方式。本文結論部分，就既成道路所有權人提起行政訴訟，從訴訟類型之選擇、請求權基礎及善用確認訴訟類型三方面提出建議；憲法財產權保障之規定，無待實體法明文規定，本身便是一種主觀之公法上權利，財產權保障內涵中，實已包括無補償即無財產權侵害之保障，並於財產權侵害之情形已無法排除時，為補償給付之請求，德國、日本司法實務運作均是如此，我國大法官會議解釋也一再揭櫫此一要旨，行政法院固守請求權基礎，應以實定法條文規定之見解，顯然與財產權保障思潮背道而馳。就行政機關處理既成道路問題，應妥善運用徵收補償，市地重劃、容積移轉、以地易地等地政手段，檢討改進既成道路存廢及補償費計算等角度，多方面思考解決對策，才是根本解決既成道路問題應有的方向。

「知識經濟」時代裡，知識透過流通而生成更多文化資產帶給人類價值。知識，向來就是共有共享的。但起自智慧財產權出現後，開始出現知識私有、知識買賣的情形出現。難道，是著作權(copyright)戰勝了著作義(Copyleft)？近年來全球掀起一片「告！告！告！」的熱潮，無論是美國的Napster訴訟案，還是台灣的「成大MP3」事件；還是微軟在美國的反托拉斯訴訟，或是在台灣面臨合理議價調查，都顯示「著作權」引發的相關問題蔓延全世界。 本研究將知識/文化商品視為資訊資本主義社會的生產工具，並且探討當「智慧」變成「財產」時，資本主義、國家機器爭權奪利的過程中出現的問題與爭議。研究者先就著作權的政治經濟脈絡耙梳出「著作權」不是「道德問題」，而是「經濟問題」，更是國際關係中藉以制衡弱勢小國的利器。 實證部分以1960-2002年間台灣著作權發展過程中三個衝突事件為例，包括1960年代的《大英百科全書》翻印風波、1980年代的「蘋果電腦侵權事件」，及1990年代跨國公司進入後的台灣流行音樂產業作為個案，具體驗證台灣著作權發展過程中，的確受到資本主義與國家機器及國際依賴關係的影響。最終以近年來網際網路發展蓬勃，連帶引出的著作權爭議作結，本研究除了對台灣著作權的政治經濟發展提出看法外，亦在結論中對知識/文化產業，及著作權規範的未來發展提出意見。 / Under knowledge-based economy, knowledge brings more value to human beings by spreading and then generating cultural properties. Although sharing is the essential characteristic of knowledge, there have been some arguments that knowledge is private and knowledge can be traded after the idea of intellectual property rights emerged. Does it mean Copyrights overtops “Copyleft”? In recent years, there have been more and more lawsuits related to copyrights such as Napster vs. RIAA in 1999 in the US, and IFPI vs. NCKU MP3 lawsuit in 2001 in Taiwan. Moreover, Microsoft, the worldwide leading software company, also faced US federal government’s antitrust violations prosecution, and rational price investigation by Taiwan government. All these cases indicate that copyright has caused problems all over the world. This thesis regards both the knowledge and cultural products as the producing tools of information capitalism society. It also discussed the conflicts between Capitalism and state apparatuses when “knowledge” became “property.” By examining the context of political economy in intellectual property, the author achieved two conclusions. First of all, the copyright is not a moral issue but an economic one. Secondly, in international society, copyrights have been the weapon for powerful nations to control the powerless ones. We cited three copyright conflicts in Taiwan from 1960-2002, including the reprint issue of Encyclopaedia Britannica in the 1960s, copyright violation case of Apple Computer in the 1980s, and the international pop music piracy disputes in the 1990s, the author made an empirical research to conclude that the development of copyright in Taiwan indeed was affected by the capitalism, the state apparatuses, and the international interdependency. This thesis ended with the prospective copyright issues originated from the burgeoning Internet industry. Not only did the research indicate some suggestions regard to the development of political economy in copyright, also made comments about the future development of knowledge/culture industry’s copyright regulation.

近年外資在中國投資日益增多，成為中國政府所重視的經濟政策導向之一，改革開放後，相關法制和制度逐漸健全，藉以吸引更多的外國資金流入，帶動中國經濟蓬勃發展。 中國大陸反壟斷法於2008年8月1日正式生效，對於外資企業造成一定程度的影響，特別是對於外資企業併購所涉及的經營者集中和濫用知識產權所造成的市場支配地位，在反壟斷法施行後，受到全球欲投資中國的外資矚目。 外資在中國欲從事相關的併購和商業行為，除了中國特殊固有的國情外，加以中國知識產權之保護與反壟斷法之立法，讓外資受到相關的限制。中國國情特殊、市場廣大，在政治和經濟上的影響力不可小覷，各國都希望拓展大陸市場，而運用知識產權的排他性為取得市場支配地位最快速的手段，但如何與中國反壟斷法衡平，避免受到有關機關的反壟斷審查以及懲罰，是外資在進入中國市場時需要考慮的要點。 本文企圖從可口可樂收購匯源、中國微軟黑屏事件兩個案例分析中，歸納出中國政府對於外資併購和壟斷所採取之態度，以及中國反壟斷法與知識產權適用上的平衡交錯，並且在結論與建議上提供外資及台商在反壟斷法施行後經營知識產權所應當留意之處。 / In recent years, foreign investments in China have been increasing because of Chinese Government's economic policy and global economic trends. The gradually improved investment regulations in legal system and environment attract more and more foreign capital inflows, and led China's economy to flourish. China’s antimonopoly law had effect on August 1, 2008, and had great impacts on foreign enterprises, especially in mergers and acquisitions and market power to which is contributed by the exercises of intellectual property rights. Foreign companies must consider China's special national conditions. Besides, protections of China's intellectual property rights and anti-trust legislations also exercise restraints on foreign investments in China. All countries want to develop the market in China, while the exclusive use of intellectual property rights in order to achieve a dominant market position is the most rapid means, but how the Chinese anti-monopoly law equitable to the exclusive IPR would be the key point. Foreign investors who are entering the Chinese market need to consider the main points of the authority concerned in antitrust law reviewing and punishments. From the acquisition case of Coca-Cola and Huiyuan and Microsoft case in China, this thesis attempts to draw a conclusion of what attitudes towards foreign companies Chinese Government would take in the future.In order to summarize how to balance China's anti-monopoly law and intellectual property rights for foreign mergers and acquisitions. Also, remind Taiwanese investor of business tips from the legal and business points of view.

政府辦理區段徵收希望帶動新社區的繁榮，達成都市整體發展，取得公共設施用地及節省龐大建設經費支出等之目標，而地主希望藉由政府的開發行為，享有土地利用價值提高、公共設施完善等好處，然而所謂的公私互蒙其利，共創政府與民眾雙贏的開發方式，卻仍常產生地主為了財產權保障抗爭之情形而導致區段徵收作業延宕，因此，本研究以高鐵新竹車站特定區區段徵收案為例，針對地主選擇行為進行探討，透過群落分析歸類地主選配抵價地的型態，經由因子分析找出影響選配抵價地行為之因子，最後藉由羅吉特建立地主選配抵價地模型，希望可以提供政府部門及地主在選配抵價地之參考。研究結果如下： 一、 透過群落分析，予以歸類分析，劃分易於解釋的分配類型，可獲得二個群組四個方案，由此可瞭解地主選配抵價地型態。 二、 參與抵價地配地作業以男性地主居多，以年齡層多集中於中年左右，受訪地主多為已婚；受訪地主針對各項選配抵價地之影響因素均表示影響程度上都是以影響很大為居多，其中受訪地主多數認為使用分區類別、面前街道寬度、鄰近嫌惡設施程度、坵塊形狀、街廓評議地價高低等因素對於選配抵價地影響很大，又以鄰近嫌惡設施程度為居高。 三、 經由研究得知目前政府提供予地主之資訊管道不足或宣傳不周，對於整體區段徵收作業仍需加強與地主資訊的傳遞，以及充分公開整體計畫內容。 四、 部份地主不太滿意先抽籤再選配街廓的抵價地配地作業方式，其原因有主要為因籤號先後導致無法選配期望街廓佔多數，其次為權利價值較小者可能無法選配街廓，而需再與他人合併分配。 五、 建構八種類型之二項羅吉特模式，並透過AIC及SC值找出能力較佳的群組方案，由方案中得知地主多數還是以居住適宜性及小規模開發為主要。 六、 由二項羅吉特模式實證結果顯示，模型共通變數為土地變數的使用分區類別、基地最小開發規模訂定、鄰近嫌惡設施程度、緊臨遊憩設施狀況、坵塊座向，以及地主行為變數面前街道寬度影響程度、鄰近嫌惡設施影響程度、區段徵收前土地座落位置影響程度、性別、學歷、職業等等，均顯著影響地主選配抵價地之行為。 / Zone-expropriation by government hopes to achieve these targets like exciting new community's prosperity, achieving the overall development of the new city, accessing the public facilities and saving huge expenditures. By the government's development activities, the landlords enjoy the benefits of increased value of land and good public facilities. Handling Zone expropriation creates a win-win situation between the Government and the landlords. However, in the process of Zone-expropriation often generate opposition of landowners to protect their property rights which led to delays in Zone-expropriation operations. Therefore, this study of THSR (Taiwan High Speed Rail) Hsinchu Station Zone- expropriation as an example and discuss the landowner’s choice behavior. Through cluster analysis classified the landowner’s choice behavior. And by factor analysis to identify the major factors of landlord’s choice behavior. Finally by Logit modeling the landlord model hopes to provide some valuable suggestions for government. The study results are as follows: 1. Through cluster analysis, the study classified and divided into two groups that are easy to explain. The two groups contain four plans each and they can explain the landlord’s choice behavior. 2. Landlords of participation of Zone-expropriation are mostly male with age around 40 to 60 years old. These mostly married landlords think these are the major factors, the use of zoning category, the street width, the neighboring facilities, the shape of street block, the value of street blocks. The neighboring facilities rank the top 1 factor. 3. Through the research shows that government lacks of information or promotional channels. Government should improve the communication with landlords and fully disclosed the contents of the overall Zone-expropriation plan. 4. Landowners are not satisfied by the flow of ballot at first and then land choosing. The major reason is landlords can not choose the expected lands after ballot. And the second reason is the land loads with smaller land value can not choose street blocks unless they combine with other landlords’ land value and choose the expected land. 5. In the study, construction of eight types of models from two of Logit modeling, through the AIC and SC values come out the better group and plan. It shows the better plan is the small-scale residential development and good environment for the most landlords. 6. By the empirical results from Logit model show that model common variables are the land use zoning category, the base size of the minimum development, near the level of aversion facilities, recreational facilities close to the zone, street block location, the width of the street, the impact of land location before zone expropriation, gender, education, occupation, etc. They are significantly affected the selection behavior of land choice.

本研究以文獻分析法及實地訪談法等方式，以剖析台灣原住民族土地財產權制度從共同所有到個別所有的演變關係。研究主題包括：一、明析原住民族土地財產權制度演變歷程的要因與結果；二、明析日治時期迄今，不同統治者標舉「理蕃」政策或山地政策所隱含的決策目的，及統治者實現其決策目的採取的行為措施，暨這些決策目的與行為措施如何影響原住民族土地財產權制度演變；三、明析原住民族土地財產權制度演變的結果，對於原住民族的發展造成何種影響。 透過上述研究主題，希望達成三點目的：一、分析日治時期迄今，原住民族土地財產權制度從共同所有演變為個別所有的過程、原因與結果，俾能連貫相關文獻的成果；二、分析日治時期迄今，統治政權賦予原住民族土地權利所隱含的決策目的、採取的行為措施，及其影響原住民族土地財產權制度演變之進程，以檢討「理蕃」政策或山地政策是否達成為原住民族謀求福祉的目標；三、分析原住民族土地財產權制度演變對於原住民族發展的影響，以供未來重新建構原住民族土地財產權制度的參考。 研究進行期間，除蒐集並整理研析關於原住民族土地財產權制度之相關文獻，作為建立研究架構及佐證研究內容之基礎外，更深入山地鄉瞭解原住民族對土地財產權問題之意見，俾使論證內容更為周延有據。茲摘述研究發現如次： 一、日治初期原住民族社會慣行的土地財產權制度方面 （一）部落為領域內土地財產權最大的共同所有團體。 （二）部落內耕地、獵地或漁區歸屬組成部落之社經團體共同所有。 （三）組成社經團體之家族（家庭）享有其範圍內土地之使用、收益權。 （四）共同所有之土地財產權，無繼受問題；惟土地之支配、管理者隨部落或社經團體之領導者更迭而變更。 （五）土地之使用、收益權，依各族群之家產法則繼受。 二、土地財產權制度演變對於原住民族發展之影響方面 （一）原住民族產權領域急遽限縮，個別原住民使用保留地的權利範圍亦趨於微小，平均每人不超過3甲土地。 （二）原住民族土地利用型態，由日治初期之「半耕、半獵」變成目前的定耕農業。 （三）原住民族與平地人民的所得差距，益趨擴大，且所得來源以非農業收入為主。另者，山地原住民仰賴保留地為生甚深，但其土地生產力仍屬偏低。顯示賦予原住民族土地財產權個別所有，仍無法提昇其經濟能力。 三、不同時期政府政策影響原住民族土地財產權制度演變之比較方面 （一）日治時期統治者之「理蕃」政策以攫取山地資源，回饋其宗主國經濟需求為要；光復時期統治者之山地政策在於維持原住民族社會安定，以鞏固政權為要。 （二）日治時期統治者之決策措施為「理蕃」措施；光復時期統治者之決策措施為山地政策措施。 （三）日治時期統治者之執行機制，以武力裝備的山地警察為主；光復時期統治者以不具武力裝備的一般行政機關為之。 四、詮釋分析觀點之事實方面 （一）制度的建立與發展具有累積性的「相互依存」特性，因此日治時期形成高砂族保留地制度授予保留地個別使用權，或光復時期形成原住民保留地制度賦予保留地個別產權，不同時期政府均事先實施相關「理蕃」措施或山地政策措施配合之。 （二）「資源攫取」為影響殖民政府是否實踐、落實「給予一定土地，使其耕種就業」之「理蕃」政策理想的重要因素。 （三）「政權鞏固」為影響政府實踐、落實「改善原住民族生計能力，提高其地位」之山地政策理想，及積極進行增劃編保留地的重要因素。 （四）殖民政府或我政府在面對各種主客觀條件時，均會權衡利弊得失而採取不同方法、手段、措施來趨利避禍、自求多福，以謀求自身最大的福祉與利益。 （五）在原住民族土地財產權演變過程中，因統治者界定高砂族保留地時缺乏考量原住民族傳統土地財產權觀念，且這些觀念仍發揮指導原住民族使用土地的作用，因此殖民政府根本未能有效監督、管理高砂族越界開墾之情事。 綜合本研究之論證與分析，歸納下列幾點結論： 一、日治初期原住民族社會以部落及部落內各種社經組織共同所有土地財產權，而組織成員則享有土地之使用、收益權能，並透過這套原住民族社會公認的土地財產權制度約束其內部的行為規範，達到維持社會秩序，減低護衛土地財產權的交易成本功效。 二、從討論分析瞭解，不同時期政府實施「理蕃」政策及山地政策的結果，未能達成為原住民族謀福祉的政策理想。其因在於，「理蕃」政策以掠奪山地利源為要；而山地政策以鞏固政權為考量，均在謀求統治者自身最大的利益，造成原住民族權益的損失。 三、日治時期迄今，原住民族土地財產權制度從共同所有演變為個別所有的結果，造成原住民族土地財產權不斷流失，且未能有效提昇其經濟能力，使得原住民族之地位日趨沒落。因此，保留地制度及保留地財產權型態允宜適度調整，未來可考量留設一定面積保留地，土地財產權改賦原住民族共同所有，以確保原住民族賴以生存的機盤，並維護其文化存續發展。 四、原住民族土地財產權制度變遷的過程，衍生原住民族與平地人民對於保留地財產權之爭議，政府宜妥適圓滿解決，創造族群共榮的多元社會。 五、本研究以「資源攫取」、「政權鞏固」及「制度相依」等因素分析原住民族土地財產權制度演變的觀點，均能從相關事實獲得合理詮釋。 / This dissertation conducted extensive literature research and field interviews in an attempt to explore the changes from the tribe ownership to the private ownership system of Taiwan aborigines’ land ownership right. The themes and the expected accomplishments of this research include the following: 1. To study the history and current status of Taiwan aboriginal land ownership right, to analyze the causes and consequences of the changes in the past, and to verify the findings with other scholars’ arguments in the literature. 2. To study the ruling mentality, rationale, policies and regulations towards Taiwan aborigines from the Japanese occupants to the ROC government, to analyze the impacts of these policies on Taiwan aboriginal land ownership right, and to explore whether Taiwan aborigines have benefited from such policies and regulations. 3. To study the overall impacts on Taiwan aborigines’ economical and cultural development, which was resulted from the changes to their land ownership right through the execution of different policies. The findings of this research could serve as recommendations to the government in setting up revised aboriginal land reservation policies for Taiwan aborigines. Through extensive literature research and field interviews with a few senior Taiwan aborigines about their memories, comments, and expectations with respect to aboriginal land ownership right, the following facts can be summarized: 1. The Land Ownership Right Before Japanese Occupancy a. The tribe leaders rule the land within a tribe’s territory. b. Each piece of farmland, hunting field, and fishing field belongs to a societal/economical group within a tribe. c. The societal/economical group has the right to farm or hunt on their assigned lands and owns the produce from the lands. d. Because the land is owned by a societal/economical group, there is no inheritance issue. The managing of the land is by the leader of the group. e. Traditionally members in a societal/economical group have the right to farm/hunt on a piece of land as well as to own the produce from the land. 2. The Impact of Land Ownership Right Changes on the Development of Taiwan Aborigines a. The land ownership right policies have limited the accessibility of Taiwan aborigines to land resources. Each aborigine has access to less than three aches of reserved land. b. The land reservation policy limited the aborigines to farm within their reserved land have changed the aborigines’ life style from half time farming and half time hunting to full time farming. c. Because productivity of each aborigine farm on his own reserved land is very low, the gap between the average income of aborigines and nonaborigines has been widening. Besides, the majority of aborigines’ income should come from non-agricultural sources. This reflects the fact that giving aborigines a piece of reserved land did not benefit them economically. 3. The Comparison of Different Land Ownership Right Policies by Different Governments a. The Japanese occupants’ aboriginal policy focused on seizing Taiwan’s mineral, forestry, and agricultural resources. While the ROC government’s aboriginal policy was only reactively trying to keep the stability of the aborigines. b. The Japanese occupant’s aboriginal policy was to “manage” Taiwan aborigines. While the ROC government’s aboriginal policy was a land reservation policy. c. The Japanese occupants ordered armed policemen to implement its aboriginal policy. While the ROC government’s aboriginal policy was executed by civilian officials in local governments. 4. Some Observations a. The Taiwan aboriginal policies by the ROC government and the Japanese occupants have its relationship. The Japanese occupants adopted land reservation policy for the aborigines, which led to private use of reserved lands. The ROC government has consequently adopted a more extensive land reservation policy for aborigines, which led to private ownership of reserved land by all aborigines. The policy of awarding private use privilege of land to aborigines by both governments had always been accompanied by the intention to manage the aborigines. b. Seizing Taiwan’s natural resources was the real agenda by the Japanese occupants behind their slogan of “awarding aborigines land to farm”. c. Maintaining the ROC government’s ruling power was the main interest behind her aboriginal policy of “improving aborigines’ quality of life and social status”. d. Even though the Japanese occupants and the ROC government chose different means and regulations to implement different aboriginal policies, avoiding pressures and satisfying their own agenda was what’s driving their aboriginal policies. e. The Japanese occupants did not appreciate Taiwan aborigines’ perception of land while awarding reserved lands to the aborigines. However the Taiwan aborigines disrespected the boundary of their reserved land, and the issue became unmanageable. Conclusions 1. Before the Japanese occupancy, Taiwan aboriginal tribes and the social/economical groups within the tribes rule the land they use. Members in a social/economical group have usage rights over a piece of land, and own the produce from that land. Because this system was well respected by all aborigines, there was little conflict or social cost with respect to land ownership right. 2. The past aboriginal policies failed to improve the aborigines’ quality of life. The interests of the two governments were either to seize Taiwan’s resources or to secure the ruling government’s political power. Taiwan aborigines’ welfare was sacrificed. 3. Taiwan aborigines’ perception about land ownership right changed from commonly owned by everybody to pieces of privately owned land. This reservation land policy for aborigines not only against the aborigines’ philosophy and lifestyle, but also violated economic principles of efficiency and productivity. Another conflict of interests arose due to competing over the reserved land to the aborigines by the nonaborigines. The land resources reserved for the aborigines have long been diminishing. Consequently, most Taiwan aborigines suffer from economic hardship and social disadvantage. 4. This research has explored the problems in the disputes land reservation policy for the aborigines. The following two recommendations are suggested: a. The government should actively resolve all over the reserved land for the aborigines. This can give back to the aborigines such land they deserve for generations. Resolving land disputes can also improve the relationship between all residence in Taiwan. b. Knowing the disadvantages of privately owning reserved land by aborigines, this research recommends that the government allocates additional portion from the total reserved land to the aborigines, which can be managed by aboriginal tribes and shared by all aborigines. Increasing the accessibility to more natural resources by aborigines will be a direct measure to improve Taiwan aborigines’ economic income, while in the same time, preserve their pride and cultural heritage. 5. This research has based on theories of “seizure of natural resources”, “securing governing power”, and “institutional dependence” to analyze the changes in Taiwan’s aboriginal land ownership right, and its negative impact to Taiwan aborigines’ life. Recommendations to government with respect to modifying the current aboriginal land policy were suggested.

在二十世紀七十年代開始，以Richard A. Posner為首，以寇斯定理為主的財產權理論，開展出「法律經濟分析」這一學術思潮，以經濟學觀點，來審視法律制度之良窳。而在九十年代，寇斯獲得諾貝爾獎後，更奠定了經濟學與法學間科際整合之相容性及必要性。然而，在台灣，由於深受德國法律文化之影響，以及近來政治社會的影響，經濟效率永遠無法與公平正義相提並論，而犧牲了法律經濟分析在台灣成長的契機，實為可惜，故本文嘗試以法律經濟分析之核心——寇斯定理來闡述法律制度，希望能多少引導有志之士踏入此門學術領域。 以交易成本為中心之寇斯定理所衍生之財產權理論，乃以人是理性自利為假設前提，而追求整體社會的最大產出，也就是以整體社會產值極大化的角度來看產權界定、保障，故本文乃以此種概念，對民法地上權章相關問題作以下之法律經濟分析：（1）以寇斯定理分析地上權之所以形成、其必要性及產權界定之問題，探討其制度形成之背景及經濟目的，並以交易成本來分析民法地上權章之規定所能達到的效率層面為何；（2）探討地上權法律設計如何保障財產權，研究焦點放在民法第八百三十九、八百四十條以及修正草案對於地上權消滅後地上物處理之規定，應用Calabresi與Melamed所提出之三個基本的財產權保障法則，分析地上權消滅後，地上物之處理，所採取之保障法則為何，及所導致之經濟效果來判斷法律制度設計之良窳。 本研究認為，地上權制度由於因物權法定主義之特性，使得該制度之設立得以省下搜尋及資訊成本，而突顯其必要性，但仍必須與因物權態樣之僵化程度相衡量；而對於地上權消滅後地上物之處理，本文認為設計上忽略了工作物及竹木經濟特性之不同，而予以分別討論。在分析中，發現當工作物具公共財性質時，不管以財產法則或責任法則，都無法解決效率及財產權保障問題，此乃當初財產權界定有誤，必須以特別法或特別規定排除；而關於建築物於消滅後之處理，法律設計上形成了二回合的責任法則，依Ayres及Balkin之觀點，此將會誘導雙方透露出私人訊息，而為法院判斷其真實價格而作為補償額之有效依據，並在第二回合責任法則結束時，以財產法則遏止無效率的相互侵奪繼續下去，因此，民法第八百四十條第一項及第二項之規定，符合了此種觀點，而能達到效率，並符合立法意旨。