本論文重要的目的，瞭解捷克轉型正義的特色與淨化法的施行。捷克轉型正義，發生在蘇聯解體、中東歐國家政治、經濟轉型的脈絡下。去共化和處理過去共遺緒問題，是中東歐國家轉型正義的重要任務，淨化法在如此政治環境下產生。捷克的淨化政策，由於國內政治非制度淨化，加上民主選舉過程，導致黑函滿天飛，所造成嚴重的政治問題，因而訂定的立法規範。這樣的背景下，淨化政策是一種特殊、臨時的政策工具。反映出當時轉型政治所面臨的困難，以及共黨政治轉型到民主政治之間，體系轉換的矛盾。此外，淨化政策也代表，當時捷克政治環境危機的解決方式。回到歷史的脈絡下來看，淨化政策是一種人事改革的手段，也是推動整體改革的基礎。解構舊有的權力結構，讓新民主有機會發展。 淨化政策在施行上，仍有許多爭議，包括可能侵害個人政治權力，以及被認為是一種對於共黨的報復手段，但淨化政策最重要的目標，是為建立特殊時期的改革基礎，也沒有具體的資料顯示，淨化政策會造成政治民主發展的傷害，相反的，淨化政策的施行得當，對於新民主的發展是有助益。 / The most important purpose of this thesis is to understand the characteristics of the Czech transitional justice and Lustration Law. The Czech, as a Central and Eastern European countries, transitional justice occurred in the Post-Soviet with the political, economic restructuring context. Both "de-communism" and "the dealing with the past" is important task of the Transitional Justice in Central and Eastern European countries, and the Lustration Law implement in this background. Czech Lustration Law is result from wild lustration, because of democratic electoral system, leading to blackmail over the place, caused a serious political problem. Therefore, the legislators decided to make the law. Based on the above, the Lustration Law is a special, temporary policy tool. The situation reflects the challenges of political transition, and the communist political transition to a democratic system, is facing tremendous contradiction. In addition, the Lustration policy also represents a solution choice of the Czech political environment crisis. Lustration policy is a kind of a personnel reform policy, and promotes the overall reform. Destroy the former power structure, so that the new democracy has a chance to develop. Examining the Lustration policy, there is a lot of controversy. Including it may infringe the personal political right, and it’s considered as retaliation to the former political elite. However, the Lustration policies the most important goal is to establish the basis of a special period of reform. There is no specific evidence to show that Lustration Law will result in damage to the development of political democracy. On the other hand, lustration policy is implemented appropriately; it would be beneficial for the development of new democracy.

本論文主要透過新制度主義研究途徑以探析「轉型正義」行為模式之創制與發 展，並循比較政治研究途徑對俄羅斯及台灣實踐「轉型正義」之特性，進行異同 比較。 檢視20 世紀下半葉，諸多威權政體相繼歷經民主轉型過程，對前朝政權系統 性斲害人權等罪愆之施暴者與蒙難者該如何處置，往往為此等轉型國家之嚴峻挑 戰；「轉型正義」即泛指新興民主國家面對該挑戰時所採取之各項措施。相關對 以往威權罪愆之回應，現今，國際間已啟動轉型正義機制之國家，大多循經刑事 訴責、公共遺却及真相委員會等三途徑以進行。 本論文認為，歷經民主轉型，俄羅斯發生轉型正義之動因乃為深化與維持民主 體系，遏止威權復辟之可能，並擇取「祛記憶」途徑以進行，在實踐作為層面則 因集體遺却與政治冷漠，而遭所侷限；台灣發生轉型正義之動因為深化與維持民 主體系，遏止威權復辟之可能，並擇取一類似於「真相委員會」途徑以進行，在 實踐作為層面則受到國家認同與族群分立等情境所制約。 / The purpose of this study is to analyze the creation and development of "transitional justice" behavior patterns through new institutionalism approach, and to compare the similar and different features that “transitional justice” practiced in Russia and Taiwan through comparative politics approach. Recalling the second half of the 20th century, many authoritarian regimes have been through the process of democratic transition, the regime of former victims of systematic human rights of battle sins of the perpetrators and how to dispose of those battered, often for this and other challenges in transition countries; "transitional justice "that refers to the new democracies of the challenges faced by the various measures taken. The relevant authority of the past sins of the response, now, internationally, the nations that begun the transitional justice mechanism, great majority, through the prosecution channel, the amnesia channel and the truth commissions channel to proceed. This author argues in this study that, after democratic transition, the factor of transitional justice in Russia is to deepen and maintain the democratic system, guarding against the possible of authoritarian of restoration, and to choose the ”disremembering” channel. The practice is restricted by collective amnesia and indifferent of politics; the factor of transitional justice in Taiwan is to deepen and maintain the democratic system, guarding against the possible of authoritarian of restoration, and to choose a channel similar to the "truth commissions ". The practice is restricted by some situations like national identity and ethnic division.

一個國家發生大規模國家暴力之後，檢討相關人員的責任，向來是重要的轉型正義議題，可是這個議題在台灣因為多種原因，長期被忽略。長達三十八年的戒嚴期間，上萬人因叛亂、匪諜嫌疑被捕、遭判重刑，至少八百人失去生命。在這種官僚式壓迫的體系中，檢討相關人員責任前，須先了解當初他們在暴力行動的參與中如何做出決定。本文藉由判決書檔案，探索並評析軍事法官如何針對政治案件進行判案，並且將人民判處死刑。從中發現幾項事實，可供未來檢討這些法官刑事與道德責任之基礎。法官的判決與論述中，除了曾經出現違法的情形外，亦不乏相同犯罪事實，判決標準不一致，以及違反人權精神等例證。另一方面，確實也曾經出現較為人道的判決。這些事實顯示當時法官擁有裁量權，選擇空間是存在無疑的。從而，部分選擇剝奪人民生命的法官，可能面臨道德上更大的非難。 / As massive state violence subsides, the issue of holding those who carried out such violence into account has always been an important concern. Yet due to numerous reasons, such issue has been long ignored in Taiwan. During the 38-year-long martial law period, tens of thousands of citizens were arrested and severely condemned on charges of subversion or espionage. In such bureaucratic oppressive regime, the decision-making process should be studied prior to the discussion of responsibility. By studying the verdicts, this thesis focuses on exploring and analyzing how death sentences were made by military judges. The results show that not only illegal verdicts have ever occurred, but also the inconsistencies between verdicts with similar criminal facts, as well as examples in violation of human rights spirit. On the other hand, there were indeed some cases where the judges ruled more humanely. In all, these facts demonstrate that the judges did have powers of dicretion, and room for choice undoubtedly existed. Hence, the acts of certain judges, who under the same circumstances chose nevertheless to deprive lives of certain citizens, may seem to be more morally reproachable.

由於台灣與南韓近期的政權與溝通的更迭，兩國國內的政治焦點 又再次轉向正義，尤其是針對在獨裁政權統治下，受到迫害的人民而 言的歷史正義。雖然台灣與南韓在二十世紀時，都經歷了相似的政治 進程，但兩國在處理政治轉型前的人權迫害問題，即所謂的轉型正義 的方法卻不盡相同。在南韓，轉型後的政府開始推行一系列的政策， 包括成立真相委員會、審判兩名前任總統、為國家暴力的受害者建立 多重補償法案。相對的，台灣政府的作法則較為零碎，使用相對消極 的方法尋找真相、提供戒嚴時期的受害者賠償、目前則處理長久以來 具有爭議性的國民黨黨產問題。本論文將檢視此兩個東亞「第三波」 民主國家，在處理轉型正義的問題上（亦即尋求真相與責任歸屬）為 何會採用兩種徹底不同的解決之道，並對不同解決方式背後的環境、 歷史、制度下的原因提出疑問；接著探討南韓政府這看似合理的做法 為何僅是紙上談兵，究竟有何欠缺。針對兩國的轉型正義議題，本論 文試著提出一項溫和的轉型正義推動政策，以滿足受害者對於真相、 對於平復的渴望，以促進兩國內部對立團體的和解。

台灣司法院大法官早在1948年就開始進行違憲審查，迄今已釋憲超過65餘載，共作成730餘則大法官解釋，違憲宣告的比例大約30%至40%之間，其中與社會權相關的案件約20餘件，面對社會權應如何司法性的提問，我國學者多認為大法官對於社會權案件之釋憲立場過於難以捉摸，時而寬鬆時而嚴謹，大法官於社會權案件之審查上，並未創造出一套如同自由權般穩定且具有預測可能性的審查標準。 對於我國大法官於社會權案件中的釋憲難題，若僅著墨於方法論上的研究，忽略國家整體社會發展的歷史脈絡，將有見樹不見林之遺憾，而此種將社會發展歷史脈絡融入大法官釋憲過程中，最受國際推崇者莫過於南非憲法法院。南非在歷經長達數百年的種族隔離後，終於揮別威權擁抱民主，並擁有一部為世人所稱羨的新憲法，然而新民主南非所面臨來自於經濟、社會、政治與轉型正義等各方面之挑戰，並未因新憲法的制定而全盤迎刃而解。相反的，民主化後的新政府因財政短缺，導致無法實踐南非憲法中所保障之社會權，求助無門的民眾最終只能向憲法法院訴請權利保障。南非憲法法院面對困擾全球各地憲法法院之亙古難題「社會權如何司法性」時，並不懼怕挑戰，展現出以人為本之人權保障與弱勢保障之高度，做出許多為世人所稱羨之社會權憲法判決。 反思我國之社會權釋憲案件，多數均非由經濟弱勢者所提出，甚或有些與弱勢生存保障密切相關之釋憲案，最終這些弱勢群體之弱勢成因、社會處境現狀並未在釋憲場域中被凸顯、被衡量，導致憲法權利保障所連結之個人或群體從事現場域中消失了。對此，人民權利保障與權力分立原則同為憲法之兩大基石，二者間並無孰輕孰重之差別，故在社會權案件中，雖需考量資源有限性等權力分立之問題，然而過度尊重立法者之形成自由忽略人民權利保障之作法，仍有進一步改善之空間。

本論文探討的是，六十五年前台灣受過苦難的白色恐怖政治受難者重回受害地，成為人權博物館兩園區志工之傷痕記憶轉化歷程。此歷程從個人傷痕記憶著手，含括他們參與人權館說故事後的自我轉化，及轉化後對該館於臺灣社會實踐轉型正義中的角色扮演期待。探索個體與集體記憶是件困難的事，是故起點回到綠島、景美兩處受難地，幽暗無聲卻蘊含飽滿故事的場所，參觀者在此可認識歷史並感受他們受過的苦難。 研究動機肇始於，研究者觀察到不是每位經歷過苦難的人都能重回曾經的受害地，更遑論驅離自己內心的黑暗，點亮傳遞人權之火。很多人仍噤聲不語的生活，惟卻有幾十位受難者志工願意回到園區，說出自己的經歷。國家暴力導致之歷史事件，讓他們成為監獄受害地的一部分，監獄經過社會政治制度的轉變成為博物館，出獄多年後或遺忘或埋藏的人與事，當再進入博物館重見押房牆面留存舊時斑駁痕跡，便即喚起他們內心的傷痕記憶。情境讓記憶甦醒，園區成為說故事場所，他們說故事也觸動個人生命轉化。 研究對象以1950～1970年代十位不同意識型態受難者志工為主，研究者經過近兩年多長期間的相處觀察，與兩個多月訪談分析，看見與熟悉著不同受訪對象的情緒風貌，瞭解他們傷痕記憶的異與同，經歸納分析後，提出不同年代他們有所差異的傷痕記憶建構模式。 研究者更透過該等模式深刻瞭解，十個故事中個體與集體，彼此記憶交錯的幾種複雜情緒，與情緒及內心正面力量的交互作用；也分析不同傷痕故事中隱存之歷史脈絡，與脈絡及個體在過去所想、所看的當時集體社會狀態之關連。更獲知，另有一群受難者，有別於當下臺灣社會認知主流冤錯假案外之另類記憶。人與空間的複雜關係，在過去，如暗室囚禁的恐懼，強化傷痕記憶深植於受難者心中，此記憶並與實質囚房空間密切聯結著；時空改變後，現在，監獄囚室的受害場所內涵轉化為展示歷史的博物館，空間與傷痕感受聯結之記憶，便以故事形式於人權館再現。人權館成為受難者生命質變的場所，它讓他們說故事的意義變得不一樣，產生自我傷痕解構後的療癒結果，也對不同年代他們，不僅對自我，也對參觀者、更對台灣社會產生正面影響。 本研究發現，轉型正義必須從人開始，積極實踐的基礎則是，賦予社會生活中的每個人應重視人權教育，與點燃其探詢歷史真相的熱忱，及擁有維護社會公平正義的態度。除了前述實踐基礎發現外，受難者與人權館又促成另者改變，個體轉化後對群體社會狀態的正面影響，即參觀過該館的年輕人開始關注阻止身邊不正義的現象，與挺身制止違反公共道德的主動行為。此等個體與群體行為的改變，更強化受難者更積極投身人權館，促成該館公共性價值的形成，此價值是民主制度構成之關鍵核心原點，即是公民參與由下而上的集體動能。此動能再促使該館運作更符合社會各界期待，令它在台灣實踐轉型正義失落中，扮演還原歷史真相、教育思想傳遞的關鍵角色。 / This research was aimed to live through and to record the transformation and transcendence of the 65-year-old bitter, traumatic memories of White Terror as the surviving victims returned to the sites of terror, namely Green Island and Jingmei, now both divisions of Taiwanese National Human Rights Museum, to work as volunteer narrators. The records of this sublimation process started with the victims’ memories of sufferings, and as they began to voluntarily tell their own stories, they turned their personal traumas into eager expectations for the National Human Rights Museum to trigger the practice of transitional justice in the entire Taiwanese society. To explore every piece of individual as well as collective memory, both sites of terror, where gloomy silence used to haunt with heart-breaking stories untold, were repeatedly visited so that the painful history could be relived. For the rest of their lives, many victims of White Terror could only live in total silence, never to bring themselves back to the place of sufferings again, let alone lighting up the dark corners inside their hearts and passing on the torch of human rights. However, this study was motivated by the observation that several dozens of White Terror victims did come back to where they had been tortured to tell people their sad stories. In the Museum, every little trace on the walls of the preserved prison cells brings back these victims’ traumatic memories. As these victims relive their painful years in prison and share their stories, the Museum becomes a place where history is passed on and life is lifted up to a higher level. The subjects of this research were ten volunteers, each with a different ideology, who had been prisoned for political reasons during the 1950~1970 period. Through more than two years’ close observation as well as intensive depth interviews that spanned more than two months, the researcher was able to depict these storytellers’ deepest emotions and form a time-bound traumatic memory construction model after analyzing the similarities and differences of the interviewees’ traumatic memories. By applying the model developed, the researcher was able to detect several complicated emotions hidden behind intertwined individual/collective memories as well as some conflicting interactions between those dark emotions and certain positive energy inside. Meanwhile, the historical context could also be revealed by studying those traumatic stories, and so could the relation between the social status perceived by the individuals and the historical context at that time. Notably, this study also discovered that a certain group of White Terror victims actually bear in mind some alternative memories of fear that are off the mainstream and are distinct from the so-called cases of injustice. Dynamic relationships have always existed between human beings and space. In the past, fears towards the dark prison cells were planted deeply in the victims’ hearts. Yet, as the very site of persecution has been turned into a window for history display, the memories that used to connect the fear and the prison cells have now become stories that are passed on and on for the sake of human rights enhancement. The storytellers’ lives have thus sublimed, for the repeated actions of storytelling have been decomposing and healing the traumas inside their hearts, and having positive influence to the visitors of the Museum and to the whole Taiwanese society as well. This study has confirmed that transitional justice has to start with people. To actively put transitional justice in practice, every individual in the society has to be well educated to cultivate a good sense of human rights, a positive attitude towards social justice, and enthusiasm for the exploration of historical truths. In the Human Rights Museum, the volunteer narrators have not only transformed their lives from miserable victims into determined social justice promoters but have also influenced and encouraged young visitors to start paying attention to incidences of injustice happening around them and to take actions against them. The positive influences form a cycle and reinforce one another, helping to shape a collective, bottom-up value system that is the very core of democracy.

隨著世界各國在民主化後對重新審視、扭轉過去壓迫性政權作為的嘗試，近年來以臺灣史料為題材的研究中，以轉型正義為主題的論文也有逐漸增加的趨勢。不過多數研究習慣將視野集中於國民黨來臺後的族群歧視、整個國家退守臺灣後基於反共／防共的白色恐怖對人權的侵害、或是臺灣政治民主化後的補償與歷史正義，相對少有探討臺灣戰後初期對日本統治的反省內容，同時也缺乏比較性地跨越不同政權統治時期，嘗試從外來政權如何統治社會與汲取資源方式的角度，研究國家建構如何影響轉型正義主張與行動的作品。 　　相較先行研究，本論文以從日本殖民時期以至戰後初期的臺灣與朝鮮為研究對象，指出日本對新領土的國家建構工程使兩地在戰後初期都出現了轉型正義的行動與主張，而兩地在遭受殖民前與殖民期間發展出的共同體意識、社會成員處境、和殖民者建構國家的手段與過程均影響了兩地轉型正義的內容與強度；而兩地在戰後分別受到外來政權統治，再次出現國家意圖控制社會的國家建構行為，使兩地原有的轉型正義主張遭到壓抑－在臺灣，新統治者與臺灣社會認定的犯過錯者結合，以自己的轉型正義標準壓制臺灣人的權利和對政權的批判，臺灣人因此重新審視共同體界線；朝鮮／韓國對民族獨立與犯過錯者的究責要求則一直未滅，然而新統治者與其後繼者為了穩定政權，出現了無視社會要求，以新標準區別敵人並阻礙轉型正義的情形，最後，戰後初期統治兩地的新政權皆為其國家建構目的犧牲了社會的轉型正義要求，同時製造了新的不正義。 / With countries of the world tried to review and redress doings oppressive regimes did in the past after democratization, the number of theses topic on transitional justice by studying Taiwan historical resources increases recently. However, most of the researches focus on ethnic discriminations after Kuomintang seized Taiwan, human right violation and persecution in white terror era, and redress or historical justice after political democratization. There come relatively fewer discussions on reflections on Japanese rule in early post war Taiwan, and lack of comparative, cross-regime works try to explain how state-building influenced transitional justice ideas and actions, by applying viewpoint that different alien regimes carry out ruling and extraction resources from society. 　Compared with former researches, I adopt the era Taiwan and Korea under Japanese colonization to early post war period as research subjects. I first point out Japanese state-building crafts brought out transitional justice ideas and actions in early post war Taiwan and Korea, different development degrees of community imagines, situation of society members, means and process colonizers took to build state before and in the colonial period made postwar transitional justice different in the two places. Next I point out new alien regimes befell post war Taiwan and Korea, new state-building process came out once again, and transitional justice was repressed. In Taiwan, new rulers built a patron-client relationship with local wrongdoers, they put Hanjian accusation standard on Taiwanese, suppress their political right and critique, and therefore Taiwanese started to review the boundary of community. In Korea, desires to nation independence and punish wrongdoers never faded, however, post war rulers ignored society requests and used new standard to mark new enemy within, blocked transitional justice for stable regime. At last, regimes ruled Taiwan and Korea in early post war days sacrificed society requests for transitional justice, instead by pursuit of state-building goals, and brought out new injustice.