現代意義下的繼承法制，雖可用超越世代間之財產法上權利義務清算與移轉加以描述，但在大陸法系國家幾乎以概括繼承為原則的背景下，仍無法否認在此項兼具身分法與財產法兩面性質的制度中，大陸法系國家乃趨向前者；英美系國家則更偏重繼承制度之財產法面向，因而在衝突法則之立法理念上產生繼承統一主義與分割主義之區別。此項制度歧異倘涉及複數國籍人，或財產不在一國之內的繼承事件時，將成為一項棘手的問題。而在現代國際交流頻繁的情況下，舉凡勞動人口之海外派遣、國際投資，乃至於留學、旅遊等，皆可能增加涉外繼承案件的發生。因而在規範面有所不同、事實上有發生涉外繼承案件機會等因素下，建構完善之繼承準據法，乃成為國際私法上一項重要的課題。 在考量統一主義與分割主義之利弊後，並參考國際公約及其他國家關於繼承準據法之立法例，本文贊同以統一主義作為繼承準據法之立法原則，並在其追求以單一規範作為適用原則的前提下，使涉外繼承案件之處理盡可能簡化。至於我國現行之規範，因設有對我國籍繼承人特留分保護之例外規定，此就自國民之利益保護而言雖無不當，但在此項例外存在之下，應如何定位我國繼承準據法之立法主義？且本項但書規定制定之時空背景早已變遷，解釋上又存有爭議，凡此皆令人質疑我國現行規範，是否足以因應當代之涉外繼承紛爭。再就無人繼承財產之現行規範，文義上僅針對外國人於我國遺有財產且無人繼承之情形加以規範，對其他可能發生之無人繼承則未明文，故在規範設計上仍有改進的空間。 接下來，本文進一步探討繼承準據法之適用範圍及與其他準據法之關係。首先，在定性問題上，由於其僅為涉外案件準據法選擇及適用上之初步階段，故本文認為與其在此階段便將自國法所無之實質法繼承制度排除，毋寧透過國際私法上其他法技術，如反致、適應問題、公序良俗條款等，解決法庭地法院在處理涉外案件上之困難。其次，本文參照實質法層面之繼承制度架構，依序從繼承開始、繼承人、繼承財產、遺產管理，乃至於無人承認繼承等問題，探討各該部分在牴觸法層面之問題。針對繼承開始，雖然我國民法於二００九年六月修法後，將繼承法制之原則變更為「概括繼承限定責任為原則，拋棄繼承為例外」，但在拋棄繼承之實質內容仍與大陸法系國家之典型內容極為相似的前提下，以我國涉外民事法律適用法第五條第一項關於法律行為方式之準據法作為形式要件之依據，不僅在法律明確性上有所本，又可避免行為地法和被繼承人本國法之爭議。其次，繼承人之相關議題上，本文之重點在處理以繼承為本問題之先決問題，以及其他關於繼承人能力、順位，繼承權之得喪變更等純由繼承準據法處理之問題。另就繼承財產之部分，主要重點在於遺產之構成與移轉，究竟應受何種準據法支配之問題。對此，外國學說上有所謂「個別準據法突破總括準據法」，使如不動產繼承、侵權行為所生損害賠償債務之繼承等問題，累積適用各該權利義務之準據法及作為總括準據法之繼承準據法。此項議題在外國經過多年的討論，至今仍無定論，故本文對此部份，僅整理可能的發展方向，以供解釋或立法上之參考。此外，由於英美法系與大陸法系對所謂「遺產管理」之認知不同，故也造成抵觸法層面上之衝突。此問題不僅牽涉概念界定之爭，尚因其多半涉及實體法與程序法交錯之事項，如遺產管理、遺囑執行等，故於準據法的選擇與適用上更形複雜。為使討論方便，本文以「廣義遺產管理」之概念涵蓋大陸或英美法系下認知之遺產管理及遺囑執行等事項，並納入英美法系中牽涉繼承開始與否，且作為遺囑執行前提要件之檢認制度。而就廣義遺產管理之抵觸法選擇，本文於結論上亦秉持一貫脈絡而採統一處理之模式。關於無人承認之繼承，爭議多集中在法律性質與準據法之適用範圍。雖然世界各國幾乎皆將此類遺產歸屬國庫，但在歸屬權法律性質上仍有先占權主義與繼承權主義之爭，並在抵觸法上形成適用財產所在地法，或繼承準據法之歧異。本文對此，贊同將無人承認繼承理解為繼承和先占以外之公益說，並將其與先占主義結合，使無人承認之繼承成為保護內國公益之必要設計。至於準據法之適用，考量到無人繼承遺產之本質，仍有若干同於一般繼承之需求，且遺產之種類亦未必限於有體物，故以財產所在地法作為無人承認繼承中遺產歸屬之準據法，應屬最能早日終結遺產於法律上處於不安定狀態之選項。 我國法上對反致之適用前提乃需準據當事人之本國法，而我國之繼承準據法係以被繼承人本國法為準據法，故在形式上應肯定我國涉外繼承案件有適用反致的可能。而在反致與涉外繼承之關係中，本文僅就適用反致條款對繼承準據法之影響，以及廣義遺產管理上之隱性反致加以探討。前者透過對日本法制演變脈絡的檢討，啟發了統一主義國家，究竟應對繼承準據法統一處理之要求堅持到何等程度的質疑。而廣義遺產管理上之隱性反致，本質上乃外國法之解釋問題。對大陸法系國家而言，此種以追求統一處理為原則，卻在法規範技術操作下得出分割處理的結論，正可作為其與英美法系制度衝突下，追求統一處理遺產管理事項之配套措施。 本文基於立法理論、現行規範、適用範圍，以及反致與繼承準據法之關係所呈現的問題意識上，進一步從連結政策的角度探討繼承準據法之問題。於客觀連繫因素之部分，討論傳統上於繼承準據法常見之國籍、住所，以及財產所在地等客觀連繫因素，同時也就晚近新興之常居所，和一九八九年海牙公約所建構之階段適用立法模式加以研究。而在主觀連繫因素之部分，則從理論依據和實際立法上，研究繼承準據法之範疇中，應否允許被繼承人於生前事先選擇繼承準據法，並在最後得出現行之繼承準據法應有修正必要之結論。最後並於結論上從立法目的、準據法之立法理念、主客觀連繫因素之採擇，以及修正幅度等面向，提出我國繼承準據法未來可能的走向。

在評量學生的寫作能力時，通常採用直接測驗。然而，四技二專統一入學測驗英文專業考科卻採用間接測驗，來評量應用外語科學生的英文寫作能力。本研究旨在檢視專業考科之效力，並研究如何改進現行的考試方式。 為了達成該研究目的，119位應用外語科三年級學生參與本研究。本研究間接測驗試題採用四技二專統一入學測驗英文專業考科，直接測驗試題採用看圖寫作，以檢視專業考科與直接寫作成績之間的相關性。此外本研究使用問卷以調查學生對直接與間接寫作測驗的看法。 結果顯示，專業考科與看圖寫作之間呈現中度相關，表示該專業考科在某種程度上，能顯示出受試者的直接寫作能力。在四個大題中，段落組成及段落語意不連貫句子挑選與看圖寫作呈現中度相關，因此，這兩個大題較能顯示出受試者的直接寫作能力。 然而，問卷調查結果發現，受試者運用篇章結構的知識來完成間接測驗。但是，卻沒有運用相同的概念於直接測驗中。此種現象可能是因為傳統的寫作教學方式著重在文法分析及單字教學。因此，四技二專統一入學測驗的英文專業考科應同時施測直接與間接測驗，以期對英文寫作教學產生正面的回衝效應。 / Direct writing assessment is usually employed to evaluate students’ writing proficiency. However, the Technological and Vocational Education (TVE) Joint College Entrance Exam adopts indirect writing assessment to assess students from Department of Applied Foreign Languages (DAFL) in English Professional Subject (EPS). The purpose of the present paper is to examine the effectiveness of the EPS indirect writing test and how the current practice can be improved. For serving the purpose, a total of 119 third-year DAFL students participated in the study. The researcher uses indirect writing assessment, the EPS indirect writing test, and direct writing assessment, a picture writing task, as the testing instruments to examine the correlation between the two writing measures. Moreover, questionnaires are used to investigate the participants’ perceptions of the two writing tasks. Results indicated that the EPS multiple-choice writing test and the picture writing task exhibited a moderate correlation, suggesting the indirect test could, at least in part, serve as a good indication of the students’ writing competence in direct writing. Results also showed that sentence insertion (SI) and sentence deletion (SD), among the four subtests, moderately correlated with the direct writing task. The two subtests could thus be depended on as a better indication of the participants’ direct writing proficiency. Nevertheless, questionnaire findings displayed that the students applied discourse-level knowledge in the indirect test. Nonetheless, the same concept was not applied to the direct task probably because of the traditional teaching approach to English writing, focusing on grammar analysis and vocabulary teaching. Therefore, the two writing tasks should be combined in the entrance exam to produce positive washback effect on writing instruction.

我國依現行法律之規定，民事訴訟與行政訴訟之審判，分由不同性質之法院審理，係採二元訴訟制度。此制度固然有助於審判專業化，提升法院權利保護之效率與品質。惟於事件審判權歸屬難以判斷時，可能發生之審判權錯誤、爭議及衝突，對於人民訴訟權之保障影響甚大，為程序制度設計者（立法者）、運作者（法院）及使用者（當事人）須審慎面對之問題。 近年來，此等問題雖已成為學說實務討論之時興議題，惟有關學理研究仍未臻成熟，相關修法建議亦失於粗糙。有鑑於此，本文嘗試自法、德等法制先進國家獲取知識與靈感，據以為檢視及改進我國相關法制之準據。除具體論證現行法本身、實務運作以及相關改革方案之缺失與不足外，本文亦另闢蹊徑，分別從解釋論及立法論提出改進建議。 依我國現行法相關規定，審判權錯誤之法律效果為裁定駁回。此等駁回規範未考量當事人選擇審判法院可能遭遇之特別困難，將此判斷困難之不利益全數轉嫁由尋求權利保護之人民負擔，已不符合憲法有效權利保護請求權及公正程序請求權之要求，並已牴觸比例原則。近年來，受到德國法之啟發，學說及若干大法官意見書，接連呼籲藉由「合憲性解釋」等法律解釋方法，排除審判權駁回規範之適用，改採審判權移送。此等呼籲，本文認為於方法論及論理方式，皆有可議之處。在方法論上，本文主張採「合憲性法之續造」或「超越法律之法之續造」。至於論理方式，則在大法官歷來有關憲法訴訟權內涵所為解釋之基礎上，擷取德國審判實務之經驗，依循方法論上有依據之方式，論證得出類推適用「管轄權錯誤移送規範」於審判權錯誤情形，及目的性限縮「審判權駁回規範」，為憲法有效權利保護請求權及公正程序請求權之要求。不過，相較於合憲性法之續造，修法明文採納審判權移送，仍是比較理想之方式。 關於審判權爭議，我國現行法基本上採取慎重、緩慢之「判決－上訴程序」，將審判權爭議事項與本案問題一併處理，而未就審判權爭議之確定程序為特別規劃。法院於審判權限之有無辨別不當，為判決當然違背法令之事由，審判權歸屬爭議，唯有待本案程序確定終結，始告確定。故而，凡尚未確定之本案裁判，均存有遭上級審以欠缺審判權為由予以廢棄之風險。以德國立法例為藍本之司法院相關提案，雖是確立「儘速確定審判權歸屬」之立法原則，惟仔細觀察當可發現，相關草案並未一併引進德國法有關審判權爭議之特別審級救濟程序，或變更我國既有之審判權爭議確定程序。依本文推測，此應係出於規劃者對德國相關法制之誤解。對此疏漏，雖有論者嘗試提出解釋論之補救建議，惟鑑於現行法律關於審級救濟制度之明確規定，此項基於誤解而生之疏漏，似已非學理所能彌補。法律之結構性缺陷，有待立法之導正，始能釜底抽薪，真正解決問題。故而，本文建議應於立法層次，就審判權爭議規劃特別之審級救濟程序，以符合儘速確定審判權歸屬之立法原則。 至於審判權衝突，絕大部分問題非出於法律本身，而是出於向來大法官及學說誤解與濫用統一解釋制度，承認行政機關（甚至監察院）得藉由聲請統一解釋禁止普通法院裁判公法上爭議事件，創設行政機關得爭執普通法院受理訴訟權限之「積極衝突程序」。釋字第128號解釋及釋字第466解釋，為其事例。至若釋字第115號解釋，實為行政院為推翻最高法院判決所提之「非常態」統一解釋聲請案。本號解釋原因案件真正之問題點，在於普通法院應否受行政機關形成處分之拘束，而與審判權衝突，甚或審判權歸屬無關。此等程序均違反憲法明定之憲法審判權與一般審判權分工原則，以及權力區分與制衡之國家根本體制。消除此等背離法治國原則之程序，只需大法官變更見解，依法不受理此類案件即可，無關法律之修正。 對於真正之審判權衝突，現行司法院大法官審理案件法第7條第1項第1款、第2款、行政訴訟法第178條及民事訴訟法第182條之1第1項本文，已有妥適之解決途徑。目前殘留而有待修法解決者，主要是大法官解決審判權衝突可能曠日廢時之問題。固然，對此問題，目前已有民事訴訟法第182條之1第1項但書之規定以資因應。惟此一規定僅適用於繫屬於普通法院之案件，行政訴訟法則無類似規定。又縱使案件繫屬於普通法院，當事人如未能達成合意，解釋延宕之風險依舊存在。故而，此一規定僅能局部避免聲請大法官解釋費時之問題。此外，由於無任何配套規定，此一規定反而有引起其他難解問題之風險。為妥善解決大法官統一解釋可能費時之問題，保障人民之適時權利保護請求權，本文建議仿效法國立法例，立法限定大法官對審判權衝突之統一解釋聲請案，須於適當期間內作成解釋。 最後，攸關審判權衝突制度成效之統一解釋效力問題，為本文所關注之焦點。依向來通說，統一解釋應與法規違憲審查一般，不得觸及法院裁判之效力，審判權衝突須於統一解釋後經再審程序始能獲得終局解決。如此迂迴之審判權衝突解決途徑，往往迫使當事人放棄尋求司法救濟。本文自釋字第540號解釋獲得靈感，從憲法第78條、司法院大法官審理案件法第7條第1項等規定出發，佐以近來大法官相關之不受理決議案及相關外國法制，重新詮釋統一解釋制度，確立統一解釋之目的與構造，進而提出「統一解釋審查標的及效力二元論」。根據此一理論，大法官統一解釋之審查標的，可分為一般抽象之命令及個別具體之裁判。大法官統一解釋之際，除闡釋法律或命令（審查基準）之意旨外，對審查標的是否牴觸審查基準，不僅有審查權，並有拒斥權。依其審查結果，如認為作為審查標的之命令牴觸法律或上位階之命令時，得宣告該命令為無效；如認為作為審查標的之裁判違背法律時，得宣告該裁判為無效。前者（命令）之違法及無效宣告，具有一般、對世效力，後者（裁判）之違法及無效宣告，僅具個案效力。在審判權衝突之統一解釋案件中，大法官於釐清引起衝突之審判權分派法律所指之審判法院後，應宣告引起歧異案件中，審判權認定有誤之確定終局裁判為無效。依此脈絡，審判權衝突即可因統一解釋之作成，直接獲得終局解決，而無須於解釋後再經再審程序。因此，釋字第540號解釋之理由書，宣告普通法院對受理事件權限認定有誤之裁定「不生拘束力」，應可解為違法裁定經無效宣告（廢棄）之結果。對此，司法院之相關提案理由，亦已正確指出。

國際貿易實務上，「信用狀」係往來銀行提供信用狀擔保付款之模式，確保跨國貿易之順利完成、加速貿易進行，為當今世界重要付款方式。「信用狀統一慣例（UCP）」係國際商會（ICC）制定之信用狀交易實務慣例，自1933年首次頒布以來，目前已成為全世界公認遵行之信用狀標準處理方針。2007年，國際商會公佈最新修訂版本之第600號出版物“UCP 600”，明定因應銀行及航運實務發展、檢討UCP 500之規範文字及語體、抑制銀行拒絕付款率等為主要修訂目標。 鑑於UCP 600對於未來國際貿易發展之影響力，實有全面且深入研究UCP 600條款內容及規範目的之必要。本文以UCP 600新增定義解釋條款、審查單據條款、及運送單據條款為研究主題，透過闡釋條文涵義、比較與UCP 500之差異、探究新條款影響、檢討修訂目標之成效等，俾使信用狀當事人及相關銀行正確理解及適用UCP 600條款內容。 本文首先介紹信用狀之特性、經濟功能及信用狀統一慣例之定位適用等基本概念；其次從文義解釋、法律性質及當事人間法律關係等觀點切入，闡釋UCP 600本次新增之定義及解釋條款；並研究銀行實務最常發生爭議之審查單據程序，詳盡分析UCP 600規定之審單標準、符合提示、拒付瑕疵單據等重要條款。此外，本文探討UCP 600所規定國際航運常見之提單、多式運送單據、不可轉讓海運單及傭船提單等運送單據條款。最後，本文針對UCP 600條款之重要修訂內容予以彙整，嘗試提出該等條款之修正趨勢及未來發展。 / In international trade practice, “letter of credit”which is the most important type of payment in the world is the means of settlement that an issuing bank independently undertake to honour a complying presentation , and that ensures international trade to successfully completed, and speeded up the transactions.“ICC Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit(UCP)”is the rules of international letter of credit practice promulgated by the Commission on Banking Technique and Practice of the International Chamber of Commerce(ICC).The 2007 Revision, UCP 600, is the latest of a series of revisions of these ICC rules that date from 1933 and have in their evolution become the universal norm for commercial letter of credit. The introduction of UCP 600 expressly indicated the main revised objective was to address developments in banking and transport industries, to look at the language and style used in UCP 500, and to reduce the rejections of the documents presented under letter of credit. In consideration of the influence of UCP 600 for the development of international trade in the future, it was necessary to generally and deeply research the clauses and provisions of UCP 600 and the revised objective. This paper’s research subjects include the formal definitions and interpretations of UCP 600, the provision regarding examination of documents, and the provisions regarding transport documents. In order to make the parties of letter of credit and the relevant banks correctly understand and apply the UCP 600 clauses, this paper interprets the meaning of UCP 600 clauses, compares the differences between UCP 600 and UCP 500, analyses the influence of new provisions, and look at the achievements of this revision. This paper first introduces the fundamental concepts included the characteristic of letter of credit, the economic functions of letter of credit, and the position and application of UCP 600.The second part is to discuss the formal definitions and interpretations that UCP 600 new formulated from the perspectives of language interpretation, quality of law, and the law relationship of the parties. Then this paper discusses the rules for the examination of documents that most controversial in banking industries, and analyses the important provisions regarding standard for examination of documents, complying presentation, and rejection of discrepant documents. Moreover, this paper is referring to the general transport documents clauses stipulated in UCP 600, including bill of lading, multimodal transport document, non-negotiable sea waybill, and charter party bill of lading. Finally, this paper synthesizes the significant revised provisions, and recommends several suggestions about modifying the relevant provisions in UCP 600 and development in the future.

90年代起，德國再統一後躍上全球政治舞臺，從過去歐洲安全的顧慮之國，轉型成為今日歐洲政治、經濟與軍事穩定力量。但是在後冷戰時期，過去許多次級威脅因子失去了壓抑力量後，成為後冷戰時期新形態的安全議題，威脅全球政治與經濟的穩定與安全。面對這些紛踵沓至的威脅，德國一方面必須鞏固與維護自身冷戰期間所累積的經貿成就，另一方面則積極配合聯合國、北大西洋公約組織與歐洲聯盟的決策，派遣聯邦國防軍遠赴海外，從事維和、軍事、人道與救援等國際性任務，追求自身外交正常化的目標。 本文研究發現，1991年至2009年為止，聯邦國防軍在過去19年來的71項海外維和、軍事、人道與救援等國際性任務，都嚴格限定在聯合國、北約與歐盟憲章的框架下，恪遵既有的國際秩序與國內憲法規範，實踐身為聯合國、北約與歐盟成員國的義務，成為上述三大國際組織最倚賴的軍事力量。 雖然歷年來德國政府已透過具體的立法與釋憲過程，排除《基本法》限制德國海外派兵政策的規範，但是行政部門的決策過程中仍須面臨國內外輿論對於德國海外派兵政策的反對與疑慮；加上德國政府每年投入國防建軍的經費有限，聯邦國防軍的軟硬體設備未必能夠負擔高頻率與海外派兵任務，眾多因素都使聯邦國防軍多年來的派兵成效有限。 德國再統一後雖於積極參與三大國際組織框架行動，配合自身的外交折衝談判與軍事影響力，欲積極重塑其國家的地位。面對諸多主客觀的限制與未臻成熟的條件，德國重返正常化國家的過程仍將艱辛無比。 / Since the re-unification in 90’s, Germany has leaped upon the stage of the global politics. With much effort, Germany has successfully rendered itself from “a nation of grave concern to European security” into “a stable political, economic and military power in modern Europe.” However, during the post-Cold War era, those probable and minor threats, which were suppressed by the huge atmosphere of U.S.-Soviet confrontation, will appear to became the new forms of security issues in the 21st century, and further to jeopardize the global political and economic security and stability. Dealing with these countless and non-stopping new forms of threat, Germany, on the one hand, must secure its existent accomplishment in trade and the miracle of economic development, and also, on the other hand, actively accommodate the decisions and charters of the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union, to pursue Germany’s “normalized diplomacy ”by deploying its Federal Defense Army, Bundeswehr, into the overseas hostile spots, to implement the peacekeeping, military, humanitarian and rescue operations. From 1991 to 2009, Bundeswehr has participated in 71 international peacekeeping, military, humanitarian and rescue operations, which were all implemented strictly under the framework and the charters of the UN, NATO and EU. Over the past 19 years, Germany has obediently complied with the existent regulations of the international laws and the German constitution, Grundgestez, and fulfilled the compulsory obligations as the member of the 3 institutions stated above. For this matter of fact, Bundeswehr has become the reliable military force in these institutions. This thesis has drawn the humble conclusions that although the German executive branches has overruled the legal obstacles and set new paths of deploying Bundeswehr overseas by the legislative move and the explication of the Grundgestez, the executive branches will always tackle the domestic criticism and the international skepticism; meanwhile, the executive branches have never allocated even more sufficient annual budget for the military branches to maintain its readiness-rate, therefore the training of personnel, software, equipment and facilities may not genuinely satisfy the needs for actual battles and afford the frequent and distant operations. The combination of these problem has compromised the actual consequence and the efficiency of Germany’s overseas military deployments in the past two decades. Having endeavored so hard to comply with the operations under the framework of the three major institutions, accompanying its maneuvering of diplomacy and military significance, Germany will still have to give much toil and labor to re-shape its international status. Nevertheless, being obstructed by the immature subjective and objective conditions, Germany’ road returning to its Normalcy of the state will still be long and difficult.

觀察目前服務貿易總協定(General Agreement on Trade in Services, GATS)案件，涉及GATS第2條最惠國待遇與第17條國民待遇之數量佔有極高比例。適用第2條與第17條規定時，須先認定案件之服務或服務供給者符合「同類服務與服務供給者」，唯有確定會員系爭措施規範對象與其他會員之服務或服務供給者，抑或是國內服務或服務供給者為同類服務或同類服務供給者，方能檢驗會員系爭措施有無對同類服務與服務供給者為差別待遇，因此，「同類服務與服務供給者」乃第2條與第17條之先決要件，具有極關鍵性地位。 由於服務具有不可識別性與不可儲存性，欲判斷服務或服務供給者間是否為同類服務或服務供給者有相當困難度，加上GATS原文對「同類服務與服務供給者」之服務與服務供給者係以「和」為連接詞，引發學者與會員就如何解釋「同類服務」與「同類服務供給者」適用關係之爭議；甚而，GATS第1條第1項將規範之服務貿易區分為四種不同供給模式，以不同供給模式提供之服務或服務供給者是否會因供給模式而被認定為不同類服務或不同類服務供給者，亦是「同類服務與服務供給者」與GATS規範架構之適用爭議；此外，GATS第2條與第17條「同類服務與服務供給者」之適用範圍，應如何與其規範目的為相呼應之解釋，亦是極具挑戰性之課題。由此可見，「同類服務與服務供給者」存在諸多適用上爭議，尤其在爭端解決小組與上訴機構尚未就「同類服務與服務供給者」適用爭議提出說明之情形，研究「同類服務與服務供給者」乃刻不容緩之事。 鑑於世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)之爭端解決小組與上訴機構對關稅與貨品貿易總協定(The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, GATT)與WTO「同類產品」已大致建立認定方法，並對「同類產品」之適用爭議提出見解，GATS於談判過程中曾有會員建議以「同類情形」作為適用最惠國待遇與國民待遇之規範要件，本文除論述GATS涉及「同類服務與服務供給者」案件之爭端解決小組與上訴機構見解，亦分析GATT/WTO「同類產品」案件與北美區域自由貿易協定(North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA)牽涉「同類情形」案件之判決經驗，為認定GATS「同類服務與服務供給者」與相關適用爭議找尋可能之解決方案。 / Observing recent GATS(The General Agreement on Trade in Services)cases, there are almost quart cases relevant to non-discrimination regulations of GATS, Article 2 and 17.As applying to non-discrimination regulations of GATS, before examining whether Members’domestic measures have discriminated effects to block the international services market, applicants, the Panel or Appellate Body need to determine whether the services and services suppliers concerned are ‘like services’or ‘like service supplier’. For‘like services and service suppliers’being a crucial requirement of non-discrimination regulations in GATS, researching how this requirement is applied to dispute settlement cases is an important mission to GATS. Actually, the vital issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’include: how to determine the ‘like services’and ‘like service suppliers’, how to decide whether the services and service suppliers through different supply modes are like services and like service suppliers, and how to interpret the application between ‘like services’ and ‘like service suppliers’. Moreover, interpreting the coverage of ‘like services and service suppliers’ under GATS is also a tough issue. Notwithstanding the requirement of non-discrimination principles -‘like services and service suppliers’rises many applied issues, there are no regulations of GATS to define the meaning of ‘like services’ and ‘like service suppliers', and no regulations or explanatory footnotes to clarify the applied problems of ‘like services and service suppliers’. The only way for Members or scholars to realize how to apply to this requirement or to determine ‘like services and like service suppliers’ is to analyze relevant judgments of dispute settlement cases relevant. However, WTO dispute settlement panel or appellate body did not analyze the relevant applied issues of‘like services and services suppliers’, and not resolve those applied issues completely. For resolving those issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’, this article make relevant material divided into four parts. First of all is to discuss what issues‘like services and service suppliers’arises, and what the factors cause ‘like services and services suppliers’ is hard to be practiced. The second part is referring to the judgments of dispute settlement panel and appellate body in GATT(The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade)/WTO cases regarding the applications of ‘like products’. Then, referring to the judgments of NAFTA(The North American Free Trade Agreement) dispute settlement organization in NAFTA cases considering ‘like circumstances’. Finally, this article not only advances the resolutions to resolve those issues of ‘like services and service suppliers’, in order to improve the practice of this requirement, but also recommends several suggestions about modifying the content of this requirement.

本研究以民國97年5月23日總統公布民法總則編修正條文第14條、15條，增訂第15條之1及第15條之2，民法親屬編第4章監護與輔助制度之新規定，以及法院實務運作為探討重心，輔以分析比較大陸法系國家--德國成年照護制度與日本成年後見制度，以及英美法系國家--英國2005年意思能力法案與美國2006年統一代理權授與授權法之制度，以針對我國學者對於新成年監護制度之見解與目前實務運作所產生之問題為之探討，以提出以下結論與建議：一、基於尊重本人自主權之理念，未來應制定意定監護制度。二、法定監護制度之修正：(1)意思能力之判斷原則應有明確規範，並以英國2005年意思能力法五項指導原則為判斷守則。(2)不應一律剝奪受監護宣告人之行為能力。(3)監護聲請權人應增列未成年監護人、同居人與同性生活伴侶。(4)受破產宣告之人雖不可為財產管理之監護人，但可為身上照護之監護人。(5)監護事務方面，關於重大醫療照護等身上監護事項應明文規定交由法院審查。(6)受監護人之自主權與保護受監護人之利益應有所平衡。(7)建議增列繼任監護人，以及解決監護關係相對終了，因監護人無繼承人時，無人管理受監護人財產移交與結算事項等問題。(8)輔助宣告方面：因輔助人只有同意權無代理權可代受輔助人行使所物返還請求權，為保護受輔助人，可由法院賦予輔助人行使特定財產行為之代理權。(9)最佳利益原則：法院應鼓勵受監護人參與監護事務之決定，並考量受監護宣告之人過去、現在願望與感受，以及受監護宣告之人之價值觀和信仰如何影響其決定，亦即受監護人即便現在欠缺意思能力，其意見仍應予以尊重。三、監護監督制度是監護制度成功與否之重要機制，鑒於國外成年監護制度均設有監護監督機構，以支援法院為監護監督工作，又考量監護品質之維護，我國未來應設立協助法院監督之機關。 / This research is intended to study the amendments of Civil Code, Article 14, Article 15, Article 15-1, Article 15-2, and Section 2 Guardianship and Assistantship over Adults of Chapter IV announced by the President on May 23, 2008, and to investigate the adult guardianship cases. Furthermore, this research chooses four advanced countries--Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States to compare and analyze their legal systems of adult guardianship. Those countries’ adult guardianship legal systems and the scholars’ viewpoint provide the following conclusions and suggestions: First, according to the underlying philosophy of respecting decision-making power of the ward, we should establish the voluntarily nominated guardian model. Secondly, the Adult Guardianship Act should be amended：(1) A definite standard for a person’s capacity of evaluation should be clarified. We can adopt the UK Mental Capacity Act 2005, the five statutory principles to help evaluate if a person lacks capacity. (2) The Act should not deprive a person of all his legal capacity, when once a person is declared incapacity by the family court. (3) The Act’s applicants should include minor guardian and civil partnership. (4) Guardians who are bankrupt will no longer be allowed to act as guardians for property and affairs but can still act as guardians for personal welfare. (5) The ward’s personal welfare decisions on serious healthcare and treatment should be put before the family court for approval. (6) The act should aim to balance an individual’s right to make decisions for themselves with their right to be protected from harm if they lack capacity to make decisions to protect themselves. (7) The guardian’s authority terminates when the guardian dies. However, a problem will arise from it. The problem is that if the guardian does not have a successor, the guardian cannot transfer the ward’s property to a new guardian. To solve the problem, adopting a successor guardian may be a good method. (8)The assistance (advisory) system：Because assistants do not have authority to take actions to ask the third person to give back the person’s property, the authority should be granted to assistants by the family court in order to protect their interests. (9) Best interests: The family court must consider the ward’s past and present wishes, feelings, beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his/her decision if he or she had capacity. Thirdly, monitoring guardian system can help adult guardianship system to operate successfully, and protect those wards. Many countries such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States are all devoted to developing their monitoring guardian system. In taking the quality of the adult guardianship into consideration, our country should establish monitoring guardian system in the future.

戰後在海外發展的台灣獨立運動，藉由抨擊國民黨政府在台灣的施政、質疑關於台灣地位歸屬中國的論述，對國民黨政府統治台灣的「正當性」與「合法性」構成雙重挑戰。雖然國民黨政府在公開場合中，總是強調所謂的「台獨運動」不過是「一小撮人」的「荒謬主張」，是「分裂祖國」的「險惡陰謀」，這些從事台獨的運動者甚至被稱為「叛國者」；然而，海外台灣獨立運動在1960年代快速發展乃至1970年初，美國、日本、加拿大與歐洲等地台獨組織整合成立「世界台灣獨立聯盟」（World United Formosans for Independence，W.U.F.I），將海外台獨運動帶入另一波新階段卻也是不爭的事實，如此之發展自然非國民黨政府所樂見。在反對任何形式「台獨」的原則下，國民黨政府究竟採取怎樣的因應策略來「對付」此一情勢，便是值得深究的課題，而本文將集中探討美國台獨運動的案例。 本研究將利用各單位所典藏之「外交部檔案」，輔以海外台獨團體所發行的刊物、文宣、時人的回憶錄、口述訪談等資料，試圖以較系統性的方式探討國民黨政府如何從面對突發「海外台獨」案例後，開始摸索因應原則，進而在具體案件中實踐，事後檢討成效、修訂策略，又此歷程中反映出哪一些的侷限與挑戰，國民黨政府又是如何設法（或無法）克服或跨越，乃至確立一套因應機制，整合性地運用各種手法的過程。 本文透過分析一手史料並將視野置於「島外」，不僅為海外台獨運動的發展歷史提供一個「官方觀點」的面向，也為國民黨政府在台灣的統治機制提供一個更全面的觀點。 / By criticizing the KMT rule in Taiwan, questioning the claim about Taiwan being retroceded to China, overseas Taiwan Independence Movement brings double challenges to the KMT government in Taiwan. In public, the KMT government always claims that the so-called “Taiwan Independence Movement” is just an absurd proposition claimed by merely a handful of people as well as a malicious scheme to separate Taiwan from the motherland, and participants in Taiwan Independence Movement are labeled as“seditious elements’’. However, overseas Taiwan Independence Movement grew rapidly in the 1960s. In the early 1970s, groups in the United States, Japan, Canada and Europe worked together to establish the “World United Formosans for Independence’’ (W.U.F.I), which brought overseas Taiwan Independence Movement to a new stage, a fact the KMT government doesn’t want to face. The strategies the KMT government, opposing any type of“Taiwan independence”adopts in response to the situation is a topic deserving in-depth study, and this thesis will focus on the case of the United States. This thesis consults materials such as the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, magazines, oral materials, memoirs and reminiscences of those who were involved in Taiwan Independence Movement. It resorts to a more systematic methodology to explore how the KMT government faces the challenges that the overseas Taiwan Independence Movement brings about. It attempts to uncover the strategies the KMT government adopts in different stages in the process of dealing with various actions launched by the activists. By analyzing the primary sources and focusing its perspective on events "outside the island ", this thesis not only gives an “official perspective” on the development of the overseas Taiwan Independence Movement, but also provides a more comprehensive viewpoint about the ruling mechanism of the KMT government in Taiwan.