《原住民族基本法》於2005年通過，是台灣原住民族運動努力多年的成果，但是近年來原住民族仍持續面對各種壓迫。在土地權利方面，該法第21條規定政府或私人於原住民族土地進行開發利用時，需事先諮詢當地原住民族之同意或參與（簡稱「同意權」），然而在許多案件中，原住民族主張此條文表達反對時，經常未能得到行政部門正面回應。本研究以日月潭邵族反對向山旅館開發案為例，理解「同意權」如何變成「落空的權利」。 許多文獻討論，將原住民族權利與實踐的落差歸因於「個人權」（individual right）與「集體權」（collective right）兩種概念的差異及行政部門本位主義因素。本研究則想更進一步釐清，又有哪些其他因素也影響原住民族權利的落實？ 在這些因素的影響下，「同意權」的規範運作又產生了何種實際效用？ 本研究將從「法律多重製圖」之觀點回答上述問題，首先將探究「同意權」概念在國際法、國內法與行政實踐中的規範生產與運作，分析在不同的場域下，場域內的參與者如何對「同意權」進行法律製圖。本文主張，法律生產過程中對權利概念的意義內涵轉換、法律生產與運作場域的邏輯結構，皆影響原住民族權利的實踐。同時，本研究進一步以日月潭邵族的案例，說明原住民族土地權中「自由與事先知情同意原則」或「同意權」規範，理想上是以原住民族的「參與」並實現自決權為目標，但在邵族的案例中，實際運作卻是不斷「排除」原住民族的過程，法律成為排除原住民族權利的合理化機制，更避開各種議題對立面的討論。 權利的落空一方面指權利主張不被理解與正視，更進一步指原住民族社會愈遠離「集體」的過程，因而我們需對原住民族同意權或各種集體權的運作有更多的反省，並持續探詢屬於每個部落或族群中所謂「好生活」（good life）的意義。本文最後藉用「草根後現代主義」（grassroots post-modernism）之概念，介紹原住民族在追求「好生活」的道路上，如何藉著在地思考、找回與族群內部的連結，以此對抗全球化、新自由主義趨勢下對原住民族權利的影響與侷限。 / Though its enactment in 2005 can be regarded as an achievement of Indigenous movement in Taiwan, The Indigenous Peoples Basic Law does not work as it promises. The indigenous people are still struggling for the fulfillment of rights. With respect to land rights, Article 21 of the Law requires the participation and consent of local indigenous people before the development and utilization of the indigenous land. However, the article is often neglected by the government in many cases. This case study then focuses on Thao people （邵族）who live around Sun-Moon Lake （日月潭）and their opposition to a Hotel program located in Xiangshan（向山）, which is regarded as the traditional territory of Thao. By adopting the perspective of “Multi-Layered Mapping of Law”, I hope to analyze the enactment process and the effect of law concerning the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent as well as land rights of indigenous people, and try to describe how the “right to consent” becomes a “hollow right” in practice. The study depicts the right as “hollow” for two meanings. On the one hand, it shows the situation for indigenous people facing the gap between the law’s promise and law’s practice in the complex process of law making and law enforcement. On the other hand, it further describes the more distance from collectiveness within indigenous society. The study suggests that more dialogue and more reflection is needed when claiming rights. The last part of the study then introduces the idea of “grassroots post-modernism” which discuss the way to “Good Life" and the way of resistance against globalization and neoliberalism. Although the issues need further discussion in future studies, the idea can be a guidance for indigenous people as they pursue the fulfillment of land rights, autonomy and self-determination.