人民基本權利之保障，無不受到世界各先進國家之重視與積極追求，並以之作為普世價值，及衡量一個國家民主發展的程度。人身自由權與遷徙自由權，為我國憲法所明定之人民基本權利，應予以最大保障，惟仍非不得於合乎憲法第 23 條要件之情形下，對其為必要之限制。 國家債權之實現與法治國原則之維護，均為國家重大之公益目的。公法上金錢給付義務之履行，攸關國家財政歲收之健全及發展建設之推行，其與全體國民之福祉息息相關。前揭義務之強制執行，即在確保國家債權得以實現，俾能順利完成國家建設或其他行政給付；在法治國家，人民負有守法的義務，對違反守法義務之人民，透過強制執行之程序，達到與其履行前揭義務之相同法律效果，以維護法治國公平正義之原則並建立行政法秩序。 　　行政執行法中有關拘提、管收、暫予留置及限制出境等規定，乃係國家執行機關為追求實現前揭兩大公益目的，所採取限制人民人身自由與遷徙自由之執行措施。在確保人民基本權利之前提下，應如何認定其符合憲法第 23 條之形式要件並通過違憲審查之檢驗，以確實取得該等執行措施之合法性與正當性，為本論文之研究主軸。 論文伊始，先介紹公法上金錢給付義務強制執行之實務概況，嗣分別論述：（一）、人身自由與遷徙自由之保障，及對其為限制時之違憲審查。（二）、採取拘提、管收、暫予留置、限制出境等執行措施之相關問題。（三）、人身自由權與遷徙自由權作為基本權利所發揮之功能。最後，基於建構「立法者改善義務」之憲法上理論依據，提出修法建議。 / All developed countries in the world pay attention to and pursue to the protection of human rights. It becomes a general value worldwide and it is an index measuring the democracy of a country. The personal freedom and movement freedom are the fundamental human rights stated in the Constitution of our country and they should be protected strictly. However, they still should not violate the restriction stated in Clause 23 in Constitution. The realization of creditor's right of the country and the protection of the law and order of the country are the major items for public benefits. The obligation of payment in Public Law is closely related to the integrity of the national revenue and implementation of the development. It is closely linked to the welfare of all citizens. The coactive execution of the above-stated obligation is to ensure the realization of the right of creditor of the country so that the national development and other administrative payments can be completed smoothly. In the country governed by law, it is the obligation of the citizens to obey the law. If the citizens violate the law, the coactive execution will be conducted in order to achieve the equivalent juridical of the above-stated obligation, and maintain the fair and just principle of the country governed by law and establish the order of administrative law. Regarding the arrest, detention, temporary detention and departure restriction in administrative executive, it is the execution authority of the country to restrict the personal freedom and movement freedom in order to realize the two major benefits stated above. The main purpose of this thesis is to discuss how the important conditions of violation of Clause 23 of Constitution can be reviewed to obtain the legitimacy and justifiability of those executions under the protection of fundamental human rights. At the beginning of the thesis, the overview of coactive execution of obligation about payment in Public Law is introduced. It includes: (1) the protection of personal freedom and movement freedom, and the corresponding restriction in accordance with the review of violation of Constitution; (2) the relevant issues for the execution of arrest, detention, temporary detention and departure restriction; (3) the effect of personal freedom and movement freedom on the fundamental rights. Finally, according to the "obligation of legislator on improvement" on Constitution, the amendment will be proposed.

公法上金錢給付義務之執行，移交由法務部行政執行署專責辦理後，迄今已十餘年，較之於傳統上之民事強制執行業務，或行政機關自力實施執行之立法例，行政執行機關具有獨特之色彩與運作模式。本文就公法上金錢給付義務之執行，自其基本面開始探討，從實務之視角，回顧相關問題並展望其發展。並分別就法源、法律原則、強制措施、制度比較、救濟途徑等面向，擇要深入研析，徵之相關學者論述與實務見解，尋求適當且符合實際之平衡觀點。 而行政執行法上之限制住居，兼具有保全與實現公法債權之雙重手段性質，其對於人民居住遷徙自由等權利，影響甚鉅。本文亦就其類型與要件分析、所涉之憲法議題、實務運作問題、與稅捐稽徵法限制出境等制度比較、救濟方法等層面，解構理論與實務之觀點，並契入相關案例，從事較細部之分析，且提出個人淺見，希冀能對於此一嚴峻且頗富爭議之執行手段，探尋妥適之操作原則，期能兼顧社會公義之落實與人民權益之保障。

我國憲法學者多數認為外國人雖為基本權主體，但依照權利性質說，並不享有國際遷徙自由，從而國家可任意地拒絕其入境、居留或驅逐出境。最主要的理由在於，依照國際法，主權可自由決定是否允許外國人入境及課予入境條件。從而，主權也可自由設計入出境管理制度，那麼藉此箝制外國人言論、宗教或學術自由等基本權利，並非不可想像，甚至我國亦有實例發生。雖然，憲法學者也指出國家應儘量尊重外國人的入出境，亦不得任意藉此任意侵害其他基本權利。不過，既然外國人沒有作為憲法權利的國際遷徙自由，即難以對抗立法者藉由入管制度造成的侵害，更抹滅全球化時代下外國人國際遷徙活動本身具有的各種意義與功能。 有鑑於此，本文一方面嘗試跨足國際法，檢視現行國際人權法對外國人國際遷徙的保障程度，並回溯國際法古典著作探尋主權與國際遷徙自由的軌跡；另一方面，分析現行憲法學說之不足，藉由與國際法的對話成果，嘗試重新構築憲法保障外國人國際遷徙自由的體系。之後探討國家於限制外國人的國際遷徙自由時，應如何遵循法律保留原則、比例原則與正當法律程序，並提供救濟管道，始合乎憲法第23條之意旨。經由憲法基本權保障機制的確立，最後進一步檢討現行入出國及移民法，提出建言。 / The study is intended for elaborating on the freedom of international movement for aliens. First of all, the author examines the protected area of international movement for aliens under current international law and explores the classics of international law in order to research into the entangling relationship between sovereignty and freedom of international movement. In addition, the author analyzes constitutional doctrines at the present times and their inadequacy by applying international law. Meanwhile, what this article does attempt to do is to provide a new framework of the protected area of freedom of international movement for aliens under constitutional law. Also, in an effort to protect the freedom of international movement for aliens, the author discusses how to apply principles of non-delegation and proportionality and due process of law appropriately to prevent state power from violating it. Finally, the author examines immigration law and offers suggestions.