La corporation est une institution à multiples facettes. Elle est d'abord un outil juridique au service de l'entreprise mais aussi une entité où se rencontrent les intérêts de nombreuses personnes. On nomme de façon générale stakeholders, ces personnes qui ont un intérêt dans la corporation. Plusieurs facteurs ont une influence sur les relations entre une corporation et ses stakeholders; le mode de gouvernance de l'entreprise, les attributs de la corporation ainsi que le contenu du droit corporatif applicable déterminent les échanges entre les stakeholders ct la corporation. Le modèle traditionnel de la corporation, quoique justifiable sur la base de l'efficience, peut être contesté de différentes façons. Pour évaluer la pertinemce de ce modèle, il faut l'analyser du point de vue économique pour chaque type de stakeholders. En isolant chacune des relations impliquant la corporation et l'une des catégories de stakeholders, nous sommes en mesure d'identifier les risques d'externalités et les solutions possibles. De plus, cette analyse permet de prévoir l'effet d'une intervention législative et de mieux comprendre la corporation dans sa dynamique économique. Cet exercice tend à démontrer que la position de chaque stakeholder est dépendante de nombreuses variables sur lesquelles les législations ont parfois peu d'effet. Le contrôle des corporations est essentiellement établi par un processus d'ajustement automatique des intérêts où chacun y trouve son compte. / The corporation is a multifaceted institution. It is first of all a legal tool available to the enterprise but also the junction of the interests of numerous persons. We call stakeholders the people who have interests in the corporation. Many factors play a role in the relation between the corporation and the stakeholders; the corporate governance, the attributes of the corporation as weil as the corporate law applicable will affect the relation between the corporation and the stakeholders. The conventional model of corporation is often criticized although it is arguably the most efficient model from an economic standpoint. To understand the critics and the raison d'ètre of this model, we need ta analyze it under economic terms from the different points of view of the stakeholders. Analyzing one by one the relations between the corporation and each type of stakeholders, we are able to identify the problems related to externalities and possible solutions. Furthermore, this analysis will allow us to foresce the potential effects of a new legislation and understand better the corporation in its economic context. As a result of this analysis, it seems to be that the situation of each stakeholder depends on many variables on which legislation has little impact. The ultimate control of corporations is tinally settled by an automatic process of adjustment where everyone satisfies its own interests. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures En vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit Option recherche (LL.M)"

著作權法第1條：「為保障著作人著作權益，調和社會公共利益，促進國家文化發展，特制定本法。」說明了著作權法的目的同時兼具保障著作權人權利、公共利益以及促進國家文化發展。為了達成著作權的目的，明文刑事責任於規範中。刑事責任置於著作權領域是否妥適，至今為止不僅學說上，在社會上均引起廣泛的討論，特別是我國這十年來發生了許多相關爭議性的事件。這樣的問題不禁使人反覆思考，著作權的保護範圍到底為何？以刑罰保護著作權的妥適性？ 本文從著作權的基礎思維出發，探討著作權法中公共領域、利用人權利與合理使用概念，進而分析著作權背後所代表的法律意義。著作權是否得以做為刑法上所保護的利益，必須端視著作權的本質為何。本文嘗試討論著作權作為財產權，從刑法的角度，以「家族相似性( Familienähnli-chkeit)」的概念就著作權本身資訊的特性下，討論著作財產權法益的存在與否。 美國法作為世界著作權法的領導先驅，深深地影響我國學說見解與實務操作。透過比較美國著作權法之規範，省思我國社會現況是否有必要制定如此嚴格之刑罰規定；從經濟分析的角度思考，對於著作權刑罰威嚇作用的成果效益效果是有限度的，然而著作權政策以及刑法的長期效益所帶來的成本卻是很高的。著作權刑罰所需的成本高於其所獲得的效益，以致於立法者將著作權侵權行為視為犯罪並無法有效率地保護著作權人或公眾長期的著作權利益。 本文設計一賽局，分析在侵害人選擇侵害著作權的策略時，即使政府選擇執行刑事處罰反而比起不執行所付出的成本為高，在這樣的情形下，政府不執行刑事處罰的策略才是最佳策略的選擇。法律使用刑罰保護大家共同認可、接受的利益，前提是人類的社會共同生活秩序在我們的社會共識必須認同這樣的規範，透過觀察實務案例與統計分析，可以發現我國實務在著作權重製認定或是在刑度裁量上都出現很大之問題，同時也出現許多著作權人濫用刑事程序之情形。 綜上所述，我國的著作權刑事立法確實有值得探討的空間，需要再加以審慎考量。本文認為，應該廢除著作權刑事處罰的刑罰規定，讓著作權刑事處罰行為回歸民事的侵權行為，由著作權人向侵權行為人請求損害賠償。借鏡專利法廢除刑罰規定的經驗，讓著作權回歸其本質，以民事損害賠償填補著作權人之損失即為已足。 / Copyright Law Article 1: ” This Act is specifically enacted for the purposes of protecting the rights and interests of authors with respect to their works, balancing different interests for the common good of society, and promoting the development of national culture. Matters not provided for herein shall be governed by the provisions of other acts.” It illustrates that the purpose of copyright law combines both the right of copyright owner and public interest. In order to achieve this goal, criminal liability is included. However, there are controversies of criminal liability in copyright law, especially lots of copyright social events happened in the past few years. This leads to questions: Is it right to protect copyright through criminal punishment? In this thesis, I intend to use the concept of Familienähnli-chkeit (Legal Interest) to analyze legal interest of copyright. Economic analysis of law applies the economic cost theory to the analysis of copyright rules and utility. Game theory analysis of law seeks primarily to explain how people behave in response to legal rules and institutions. The prior discussion identifies the protection of copyright through criminal punishment is relatively useless. On the other hand, as a leading country of copyright legislation and academic discussion, Copyright Law comparison between United States and Taiwan is helpful for rethinking Taiwan Copyright Law. Last but not the least, the observation of judicial practice matters is also important. I researched the related cases and made statistics in order to reveal the real aspect of Taiwan judicial practice. Based on the above, this thesis identifies the problems of criminal punishment of Taiwan Copyright Law. An overview of copyright criminal norm is given for this purpose. I then reflect on Taiwan’s current copyright criminal punishment, with particular emphasis on preeminent aspects of the elements which mentioned above that may be used as references for the future development of Taiwan Copyright Law.

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-07T14:27:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 1145387 bytes, checksum: f2ca7a52e823a2ed9e3362b3560411c6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-10-10 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This work aims to verify if the country's current regulatory framework of scientific and technological innovation would have the potential to generate effectively scientific and technological development in the Amazon region, with adequate preservation of the environment and generating the socioeconomic sustainability of the Manaus Industrial Pole. The research begins examining the issue of globalization and linkages with technological innovation; then looks at some theories of development in the context of science and technology, analyzes the construction of public policies in the areas of industrial development and science, technology and innovation; and appealing for sectorial industrial policies going to discuss the Manaus Free Zone project, its historic elements, constitutional foundations, elements of management, weaknesses and changes caused by the successive alterations in the regulatory framework. Over the course of implementation of industrial policy also highlights the obstacles, achievements and failures of the Informatics National Policy, bringing to the place its importance as a precursor to the implementation of the Science, Technology and Innovation Public Policy. In the context of application of the research, the work emphasizes the latent need of integration between the local industrial development public policies and the science technology and innovation public policies, especially when considered its linkages with the demands of the Manaus Industrial Pole where there are tax incentives from both policies. Finally, it s evidenced that the legal framework has potential to boost scientific and technological development of the Manaus Industrial Pole combined with the structuring of a systemic planning, not yet implemented. / A presente dissertação de mestrado tem como objetivo principal verificar se o marco regulatório da inovação científica e tecnológica em vigor no país teria potencial para gerar desenvolvimento científico-tecnológico efetivo para a região amazônica, com preservação adequada do meio ambiente e gerando a sustentabilidade socioeconômica do Polo Industrial de Manaus. A pesquisa parte da análise do tema da globalização situando suas vinculações com a inovação tecnológica; em seguida, analisa algumas teorias desenvolvimentistas no âmbito da ciência e da tecnologia; destaca a construção de políticas públicas nas áreas de desenvolvimento industrial e ciência, tecnologia e inovação; e envereda pelas políticas industriais setoriais passando a discutir o projeto da Zona Franca de Manaus, seus elementos históricos, fundamentos constitucionais, elementos de gestão, fragilidades e mudanças provocadas pelas sucessivas alterações no marco regulatório. Ao longo da trajetória de implantação da Política Industrial setorial, merecem destaque no trabalho os obstáculos, conquistas e fracassos da Política Nacional de Informática, evidenciando sua importância como precursora para a implantação da Política Pública de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. No contexto de aplicação da pesquisa, o trabalho enfatiza a necessidade latente de integração entre as políticas públicas de desenvolvimento industrial local e as políticas de ciência, tecnologia e inovação, principalmente quando analisadas à luz das demandas do Polo Industrial de Manaus, com incentivos fiscais oriundos de ambas as políticas. Por fim, é evidenciado o potencial do marco legal para impulsionar o desenvolvimento científico-tecnológico do Polo, aliado à estruturação de um planejamento sistêmico, ainda não realizado.

Der Deutsche Corporate Governance Kodex (DCGK) entfaltet trotz seiner rechtlichen Unverbindlichkeit als sog. „Weiches Recht“ oder „Soft Law“ erhebliche tatsächliche Wirkungen. Für Vorstände und Aufsichtsräte bestehen starke Anreize zur Befolgung, vor allem, um damit einen positiven Signalling-Effekt zu erzielen. Umgekehrt kann die Nichtbefolgung insbesondere des Empfehlungsteils negative Konsequenzen haben, die restriktiv wirken. Die vom DCGK ausgehenden Anreize und Restriktionen fallen je stärker aus, desto mehr ein Unternehmen für die Kapitalbeschaffung auf die Kapitalmärkte angewiesen ist. Die Verpflichtung zur Abgabe einer Entsprechenserklärung nach § 161 AktG führt zu einer allgemeinen Bekanntheit des DCGK und verhilft zu dessen breiter Durchsetzung. Ferner kommt es durch sie zu einer Verstärkung der Regulierungswirkungen des Empfehlungsteils. Die Funktion von Corporate Governance Kodizes ist es, Standards zu setzen, an denen sich die Akteure des Kapitalmarkts orientieren können. Zur Regulierung durch Corporate Governance Kodizes sind drei Regelungsalternativen erkennbar: Regulierung durch Parlamentsgesetz, Listings Rules oder eine völlige Freigabe der entsprechenden Regelungsbereiche. Bei der schrittweisen Analyse von Soft Law, Corporate Governance Kodizes im Allgemeinen und dem DCGK als konkretem Anwendungsfall werden im Lichte der Regelungsalternativen einige Argumente herausgearbeitet, die für diese Regulierungstechnik sprechen. Dies sind mögliche Einsparungen von Transaktionskosten, Flexibilität und eine hohe Qualität des Normsetzungsprozesses. Regulierung durch Corporate Governance Kodizes erweist sich insofern den übrigen Regelungsvarianten als überlegen. Dies gilt insbesondere, wenn die Verpflichtung zur Abgabe einer Entsprechenserklärung nicht auf einen einzelnen Kodex beschränkt wird, so dass die Regelungsadressaten zwischen verschiedenen Kodizes wählen können („Wettbewerb der Institutionen“). Ein Verstoß gegen den verfassungsrechtlichen Gesetzes- oder Parlamentsvorbehalt durch § 161 AktG ist nicht feststellbar. Bei der Anwendung des Instrumentariums der Konstitutionenökonomik zeigt sich jedoch, dass eine Verpflichtung zur Abgabe einer Entsprechenserklärung nur dann legitimiert ist, wenn diese hinsichtlich des in Bezug genommenen Kodex offen und nicht auf einen einzelnen Kodex beschränkt ist. / Despite its unbinding legal character as “Soft Law”, the German Corporate Governance Code has significant actual effects. There are strong incentives for members of the board of management and members of the supervisory board to comply with the code, mainly based on the opportunity to utilize a positive signalling-effect. Incentives and restrictions based on the code become the more significant, the more a company relies on capital markets for raising capital. Empiric studies confirm this hypothesis. The obligation to “comply-or-explain” in § 161 AktG generates a broad publicity and facilitates the general acceptance of the code. The regulatory effects of the code are being aggravated. Codes of Corporate Governance contribute to improving corporate governance structures by setting standards that capital market players can use for guidance and orientation. There are three alternatives to regulation by codes of corporate governance: regulation by law, regulation by listing rules and non-regulation. A step-by-step analysis of soft law, codes of corporate governance in general and the German Corporate Governance Code in particular brings upon a number of arguments in favour of this regulatory technique. These arguments are: savings in transaction costs, increased flexibility and a high quality of the standard-setting process. In this respect, regulation by Codes of Corporate Governance is superior to its regulatory alternatives. This is even more valid for an institutional setup where the obligation to “comply-or-explain” is not limited to a single Code of Corporate Governance, but leaves the addressees the choice among various competing codes. In such an institutional setup of “regulatory competition”, companies are free to choose the regulatory regime that best fits their specific needs. Regarding German constitutional law, a breach of the rules of provision of legality (“Gesetzesvorbehalt”) and provision of parliament (“Parlamentsvorbehalt”) by § 161 AktG can not be proven. Applying constitutional economics, a legitimating consensus can be shown in respect to the actual compliance with a Code of Corporate Governance. However, the obligation to “comply-or-explain” can only be legitimated, if the obligation does not refer to a specific Code of Corporate Governance.

本文旨在探討於我國憲法架構下，同性戀者的權利保障議題。期以引介國外相關學說與法制，解決我國日漸浮現的相關爭議。 第一章，緒論。說明研究動機與研究範圍，並揭櫫科際整合的研究方法，兼採社會學等其他學門對於同性戀議題的既有研究成果，作為法學研究的背景。 第二章以憲法平等權保障為核心，從美國聯邦最高法院所建立的三重審查基準，討論其於「性傾向歧視」案件的適用。研究發現，對於同性戀者所為的差別待遇，基於「代表強化論」等政治程序參與保障、構成違憲「可疑分類」與根據從社會學等理論，同性戀者與異性戀者並無不同，應享有同等基本權利的憲法保障，除非政府所為分類具有一「優位」政府利益，且手段與目的緊密關連，否則應屬違憲。值得注意的是，美國聯邦最高法院於Romer v. Evans一案中揭示「本質原則」(per se rule)，於立法者「惡意」對「孤立的弱勢族群」，根據偏見予以全面性不利的差別待遇，法院即得直接認定違憲。本文認為此項平等權審查途徑的突破，仍有其適用上的爭議與缺陷，其影響有待進一步觀察。 其後，針對「同性性行為」的除罪化，與「同性婚姻」的合法化等兩個當前最具爭議性，與同性戀者生活關係密切的問題，本文嘗試以第二章所建立的理論基礎，檢視其正當性。第三章討論同性性行為的除罪化。首先以社會生物學反駁同性性行為的「不自然論據」。其次，基於「自由主義」的「傷害原則」，除非對第三人造成傷害，否則對性行為均不應加以管制。再者，針對管制同性性行為的「雞姦法」，論者雖謂該法並非僅就同性戀者加以處罰，然，實際上處罰者確均為同性戀者，況立法本意往往隱涵對同性戀者的偏見等，此即與憲法平等權保障相悖，應屬違憲。惟，美國聯邦最高法院於Bowers v. Hardwick一案中則肯定該法的合憲性，本文亦就該項判決予以批判。最後則就台灣同性性行為管制或相關立法與行政措施之現狀，提出修法建議。 第四章討論最具爭議的「同性婚姻」合法化問題。研究發現，同性婚姻於本文第二章所提出自由主義傷害原則，以及平等權理論之下應予合法。首先，駁斥反對者所提出的「滑坡理論」等諸項疑懼。其次，剖析美國司法實務就同性婚姻所提出的若干論據，發現，其於同性戀者的刻板印象，深受「同性戀恐懼症」所影響，均屬情緒性反應與理所當然的偏見，是項見解，亦於夏威夷州最高法院所為指標性判決得到回應。此外，比較全球各國對同性婚姻保障的制度，「準婚姻」及「登記伴侶」等制度雖然給予同性戀者若干保障，本文認為，此項制度仍凸顯同性戀者有異於異性戀者，婚姻的形式意義與實質保障均應爭取之。基於平等權理論，國家應該提供人民相同的法律保障，既然並無禁止異性戀者合法結婚，亦不應該禁止同性戀者結婚。 第五章則總結研究發現：一、從美國聯邦最高法院、歐洲人權法院、加拿大最高法院，乃至於聯合國人權委員會對於同性戀者權利保障議題的關注，而於「亞洲人權憲章」草案中，亦明白規定對於同性戀者的平等保障，對同性戀者的人權保障，已為全球逐漸形成的共識。以比較法的觀點而言，不同法律制度所形成的理論，亦在同性戀人權保障議題上，獲得相互引證與批判，有助於理論的成熟發展。二、本文提出同性戀者權利保障的理論基礎，雖然從不同學門理論、自由主義、政治哲學等出發，然而最終關注的焦點仍在於憲法平等權保障的理念。而相關理論於晚進各國司法實務上已見採納與實踐。三、雖然台灣社會目前對同性戀者權利保障議題，其問題意識形成與公眾討論仍未熱烈，關注議題與焦點亦較未全面性深入。本文認為，法律於社會改革具有其功能，從法律與平權運動的互動，呼籲有識者重視司法途徑以解決法律限制，並提出修法建議與審查基準，作為立法機關制訂法律與法院（包括大法官）審查相關議題的參考。 關鍵詞：同性戀、隱私權、平等權、審查基準、同性婚姻、自由主義、社會建構論、法律經濟學、同性性行為、防衛婚姻法。 目次 中文摘要 英文摘要 表次 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………1 第二章 同性戀者權利保障的理論基礎…………………………………………27 第三章 同性性行為的除罪化……………………………………………………115 第四章 同性婚姻的合法化………………………………………………………164 第五章 結論：同性戀與憲法-兼論台灣同性戀者權利保障的未來…………240 參考書目……………………………………………………………………………247 附錄……………………………………………………………………………………I 詳目 第一章 緒論 1.1 研究動機………………………………………………………………………………………1 1.2 問題意識：同性戀議題的法學發問基礎……………………………………………………9 1.2.1 同性戀者在憲法基本權利主體的定位…………………………………………………14 1.2.2 同性戀者權利保障的議題取向與理論基礎……………………………………………15 1.2.3 憲法平等權審查基準的建立……………………………………………………………16 1.2.4 同性戀者權利保障的終極關懷：後續法律關係的確定與爭端解決…………………17 1.3 研究方法………………………………………………………………………………………18 1.3.1 科際整合的研究途徑……………………………………………………………………19 1.3.2 比較法的研究方法………………………………………………………………………21 1.4 本文架構：從理論到實用，從私領域到公領域……………………………………………24 第二章 同性戀者權利保障的理論基礎 2.1 理論前提：社會建構論的觀察………………………………………………………………27 2.1.1 同性戀：一個歷史的偶然？……………………………………………………………28 2.1.1.1 古代西方文化中的同性戀………………………………………………………28 2.1.1.2 古代西方文化以外的同性戀……………………………………………………30 2.1.1.3 近代文化中的同性戀……………………………………………………………32 2.1.1.4 中國傳統文化中的同性戀………………………………………………………33 2.1.1.5 同性戀醫學定義的歷史演變……………………………………………………36 2.1.2 同性戀的釋疑：同性戀（者）的刻板印象及現代科學的解釋………………………37 2.1.2.1 對同性戀（者）的刻板印象……………………………………………………38 2.1.2.1.1 同性戀危害社會………………………………………………………38 2.1.2.1.2 同性戀者無法生殖，對人類繁衍構成威脅…………………………39 2.1.2.1.3 同性戀者對兒童與青少年構成威脅…………………………………40 2.1.2.1.4 同性戀者的生活方式並不幸福………………………………………41 2.1.2.1.5 同性戀者性關係複雜…………………………………………………42 2.1.2.1.6 同性戀等同愛滋病……………………………………………………43 2.1.2.1.7 同性戀破壞宗教道德，影響社會安定………………………………44 2.1.2.1.8 同性戀者要求特殊權利………………………………………………44 2.1.2.1.9 同性戀對家庭構成威脅………………………………………………45 2.1.2.1.10 小結…………………………………………………………………46 2.1.2.2 現代科學的正面回應……………………………………………………………46 2.1.2.2.1 同性戀並非病態………………………………………………………46 2.1.2.2.2 同性戀作為一種精神疾病﹕從歷史的角度來看……………………48 2.1.2.2.3 同性戀從精神疾病除名………………………………………………50 2.1.2.2.4 同性戀的成因…………………………………………………………53 2.1.2.2.4.1 x染色體上的發現………………………………………55 2.1.2.2.4.2 生物醫學的研究：荷爾蒙與腦部構造變異……………56 2.1.2.2.4.3 後天環境論………………………………………………56 2.1.3 社會建構論對於同性戀的意義…………………………………………………………57 2.1.3.1 異性戀主義：同性戀刻板印象的形成與同性戀恐懼症………………………57 2.1.3.2 Foucault的社會建構理論………………………………………………………58 2.1.3.2.1 現代概念下的同性戀：一個性文化的興起…………………………58 2.1.3.2.2 Foucault的性理論……………………………………………………59 2.1.3.2.2.1 坦白是性之根本…………………………………………59 2.1.3.2.2.2 性科學……………………………………………………60 2.1.3.2.2.3 權力關係…………………………………………………61 2.1.3.2.2.4 建構主義…………………………………………………62 2.1.3.2.3 Foucault對性概念的重建……………………………………………62 2.1.3.2.3.1 性是否已成為一個不夠用的概念﹖……………………62 2.1.3.2.3.2 快感與慾望………………………………………………63 2.1.3.2.4 Foucault的性與同性戀政治觀………………………………………63 2.1.3.2.5 Foucault對同性戀關係的詮釋：友誼…………………………………64 2.2 自由主義的哲學基礎與隱私權保障…………………………………………………………65 2.2.1 同性戀者自由的界限：「俄芬登報告」的論爭………………………………………66 2.2.2 白紙上的墨漬：傷害與容忍的法的詮釋………………………………………………68 2.2.2.1 憲法上保障基本權利的性質及其界限…………………………………………69 2.2.2.2 傷害原則的具體化：憲法第二十三條的適用…………………………………69 2.2.2.3 基本權利的「容忍」義務？……………………………………………………70 2.2.2.4 同性戀的傷害性？………………………………………………………………70 2.2.2.4.1 破壞社會？回應社會解構論…………………………………………70 2.2.2.4.2 破壞家庭生活幸福……………………………………………………71 2.2.2.4.3 同性性行為容易傳染疾病……………………………………………72 2.2.2.4.4 小結……………………………………………………………………73 2.2.3 當代自由主義者的理論對於同性戀議題的實用………………………………………73 2.2.3.1 John Rawls的「政治自由主義」：權利的道德基礎與優先性…………………73 2.2.3.2 Ronald Dworkin的「倫理的自由平等」…………………………………………75 2.2.3.3 Joseph Raz的「至善論者自由主義」……………………………………………76 2.2.3.4 法律道德主義的「圍城」：德國戰後「新自然法」浪潮……………………77 2.2.3.5 自由主義法典範下對於同性戀者權利保障的危機……………………………79 2.2.4 理性與自治：自由主義下隱私權的保障目的…………………………………………80 2.2.4.1 理性的人：一個古老的哲學問題………………………………………………80 2.2.4.2 同性戀者是否為理性的人？……………………………………………………82 2.2.5. Richard Posner的「法律經濟分析」……………………………………………………84 2.2.5.1 功效主義與同性戀………………………………………………………………84 2.2.5.2 Posner的法律經濟分析與同性戀者權利保障…………………………………87 2.2.5.2.1 Posner的性理論與同性戀……………………………………………87 2.2.5.2.2 Posner理論的適用……………………………………………………89 2.2.6 小結………………………………………………………………………………………90 2.3 平等權保障……………………………………………………………………………………90 2.3.1 一個新歷史的開始：Romer v. Evans……………………………………………………91 2.3.1.1 背景事實與纏訟經過……………………………………………………………91 2.3.1.2 多數意見…………………………………………………………………………94 2.3.1.3 不同意見…………………………………………………………………………95 2.3.1.4 Romer案的評析及其影響………………………………………………………97 2.3.1.4.1 本質原則對於平等權審查基準的定位………………………………98 2.3.1.4.2 同性戀者在憲法上的定位不明………………………………………98 2.3.1.4.3 Hardwick案於Romer案的關係懸而未決……………………………99 2.3.1.4.4 民主價值與憲法基本權利保障……………………………………100 2.3.2 同性戀者平等權審查基準的選擇……………………………………………………101 2.3.2.1 平等權審查基準的概說………………………………………………………101 2.3.2.2 從「性別歧視」主張同性戀者平等權：中度審查基準的適用………………102 2.3.2.2.1 性別歧視審查基準的早期見解……………………………………102 2.3.2.2.2 性別歧視的新視點…………………………………………………103 2.3.2.2.3 中度審查基準的形成………………………………………………104 2.3.2.2.4 「性傾向歧視」是「性別歧視」？性別角色的迷思………………106 2.3.2.3 同性戀作為「可疑分類」︰適用「嚴格審查基準」的坦途？………………108 2.3.2.3.1 缺乏政治力量………………………………………………………110 2.3.2.3.2 「隔離但平等」與「不同但平等」…………………………………111 2.3.2.3.3 與生俱來、不可改變的特徵…………………………………………112 2.3.2.3.4 小結…………………………………………………………………113 第三章 同性性行為的除罪化 3.1 從社會生物學看同性戀與同性性行為……………………………………………………115 3.1.1 社會生物學概說………………………………………………………………………115 3.1.2 社會生物學與同性戀…………………………………………………………………117 3.1.3 同性性行為是「不自然」？……………………………………………………………121 3.1.3.1 描述性的自然法則……………………………………………………………121 3.1.3.2 「人為的」就是不自然…………………………………………………………122 3.1.3.3 凡是不常見或不正常的東西不自然…………………………………………123 3.1.3.4 與一個器官或工具的主要目的或功能相反的使用方式不自然……………124 3.1.3.5 凡是不自然的就是不好的……………………………………………………125 3.2 各國管制現況與除罪化趨勢………………………………………………………………126 3.2.1 美國雞姦法在憲法上的爭議…………………………………………………………126 3.2.1.1 性行為管制的憲法爭議：隱私權的保障範圍…………………………………127 3.2.1.2 隱私權保障的負面教材：Bowers v. Hardwick…………………………………129 3.2.1.2.1 一個不存在的事實：事實與判決經過………………………………129 3.2.1.2.2 多數意見……………………………………………………………131 3.2.1.2.3 協同意見……………………………………………………………133 3.2.1.2.4 不同意見……………………………………………………………134 3.2.1.3 Hardwick案的評析及其對同性戀者平權運動的影響………………………138 3.2.1.3.1 本案應不應該受理？………………………………………………138 3.2.1.3.2 隱私權保障的目的…………………………………………………140 3.2.1.3.3 性行為受隱私權保障的範圍：滑坡論證的疑慮……………………141 3.2.1.3.4 創設基本權利類型的理由：歷史傳統？……………………………142 3.2.1.3.5 法律與道德的界限…………………………………………………142 3.2.1.3.6 Hardwick案對同性戀者權利保障的影響…………………………142 3.2.1.3.6.1 行為與地位的混淆……………………………………142 3.2.1.3.6.2 公領域與私領域的切割………………………………143 3.2.2 美國經驗的對照：歐洲國家與全球同性性行為除罪化的努力………………………143 3.2.2.1 歐洲同性性行為的管制歷史…………………………………………………144 3.2.2.2 歐洲人權法院的判決分析……………………………………………………144 3.2.2.2.1 保障範圍……………………………………………………………145 3.2.2.2.2 侵害類型與干涉程度………………………………………………146 3.2.2.2.3 比例原則……………………………………………………………149 3.2.2.2.4 「歐洲共識」…………………………………………………………151 3.2.2.3 同性性行為作為一種普遍人權………………………………………………152 3.3 我國關於同性性行為與刑法管制的可能議題……………………………………………154 3.3.1 刑法「性別意識」與「姦淫」、「猥褻」的定義……………………………………154 3.3.1.1 同性戀及其性行為的刑法評價………………………………………………154 3.3.1.2 刑法的性別意識………………………………………………………………155 3.3.2 合法性行為同意年齡…………………………………………………………………160 3.3.3 後天免疫症候群防治條例與性行為告知義務………………………………………162 第四章 同性婚姻的合法化 4.1 同性婚姻的歷史與正反意見的陳述………………………………………………………166 4.1.1 婚姻的意義及其對同性戀者的重要性………………………………………………166 4.1.1.1 不只是「婚姻」…………………………………………………………………166 4.1.1.2 同性戀社群內部對婚姻的爭論………………………………………………168 4.1.2 同性婚姻的歷史………………………………………………………………………170 4.1.3 反對同性婚姻的主要理由及其反駁…………………………………………………171 4.2 同性婚姻在各國的憲法爭議與法律實踐…………………………………………………173 4.2.1 美國同性婚姻的憲法爭議……………………………………………………………173 4.2.1.1 同性婚姻的爭訟………………………………………………………………173 4.2.1.1.1 Baker v. Nelson………………………………………………………173 4.2.1.1.2 Jones v. Hallahan……………………………………………………175 4.2.1.1.3 Singer v. Hara………………………………………………………176 4.2.1.1.4 Adams v. Howerton…………………………………………………179 4.2.1.1.5 Dean v.District of Columbia(Barry)…………………………………181 4.2.1.1.6 小結：結婚權的憲法意義……………………………………………182 4.2.1.1.6.1 隱私權與結婚權………………………………………182 4.2.1.1.6.2 結婚權與婚姻的社會意義……………………………183 4.2.1.2 Baehr v. Lewin(Baehr I)…………………………………………………………185 4.2.1.2.1 事實及爭訟經過……………………………………………………185 4.2.1.2.2 多數意見……………………………………………………………185 4.2.1.2.3 協同意見……………………………………………………………187 4.2.1.2.4 不同意見……………………………………………………………187 4.2.1.3 Baehr v. Miike(Baehr II)………………………………………………………190 4.2.1.3.1 事實及爭訟經過……………………………………………………190 4.2.1.3.2 法院意見……………………………………………………………191 4.2.1.4 Baehr二案的評析及其影響……………………………………………………193 4.2.1.5 「防衛婚姻法」的合憲性………………………………………………………194 4.2.1.5.1 「防衛婚姻法」的制定與其內容……………………………………195 4.2.1.5.2 「防衛婚姻法」的合憲性：Romer一案的適用……………………196 4.2.1.6 平等的極致：「滑坡論證」的失序挑戰………………………………………199 4.2.1.6.1 禁止童婚與同性婚姻………………………………………………200 4.2.1.6.2 禁止一夫多妻與同性婚姻…………………………………………201 4.2.1.6.3 禁止亂倫與同性婚姻………………………………………………202 4.2.1.6.4 小結…………………………………………………………………204 4.2.2 歐洲人權公約對於同性婚姻的保障…………………………………………………204 4.2.2.1 家庭關係的隱私權保障………………………………………………………205 4.2.2.2 婚姻權的保障…………………………………………………………………206 4.2.2.3 「禁止歧視」條款與同性婚姻…………………………………………………208 4.2.2.3.1 適用範圍及其限制…………………………………………………208 4.2.2.3.2 合理審查基準………………………………………………………209 4.2.2.3.3 「比例原則」審查基準………………………………………………211 4.2.3 「婚姻」定義的突破：加拿大最高法院M v. H判決…………………………………212 4.2.3.1 背景事實………………………………………………………………………212 4.2.3.2 多數意見………………………………………………………………………213 4.2.3.3 不同意見………………………………………………………………………214 4.2.3.4 本案評析及其影響……………………………………………………………214 4.2.4 同性婚姻在全球各國的制度實現……………………………………………………215 4.2.4.1 實質法律保障：伴侶登記或認可法……………………………………………216 4.2.4.1.1 從契約到身分………………………………………………………216 4.2.4.1.2 從身分到契約………………………………………………………218 4.2.4.2 現行制度的適用與評估………………………………………………………219 4.2.4.2.1 北歐國家對於同性婚姻態度開放的原因…………………………219 4.2.4.2.2 異性戀婚姻適用於同性戀者的評估………………………………220 4.3 我國同性婚姻合法性的憲法挑戰…………………………………………………………220 4.3.1 中國傳統下對婚姻的看法……………………………………………………………221 4.3.2 現行民法下同性婚姻的合法性及其衍生議題………………………………………221 4.3.3 同性婚姻合法化在我國的可能性：大法官解釋的評估………………………………224 4.3.3.1 性別歧視下的平等：我國大法官對於「男女平等」的解釋…………………224 4.3.3.1.1 釋字第三六五號解釋/男女「合理」差別待遇︰多合理？…………224 4.3.3.1.2 釋字第二四二號解釋/「婚姻」作為「制度性保障」………………229 4.3.3.1.3 小結…………………………………………………………………235 4.3.3.2 我國憲法第七條「男女平等」與同性戀平等權保障…………………………235 4.3.3.2.1 憲法文本的詮釋……………………………………………………235 4.3.3.2.2 性解放下的男女平等………………………………………………237 4.3.3.3 小結……………………………………………………………………………239 第五章 結論：同性戀與憲法-兼論台灣同性戀者權利保障的未來 5.1 平權運動策略建言…………………………………………………………………………240 5.1.1 建立共識，尋求認同…………………………………………………………………240 5.1.2 具體可行的目標………………………………………………………………………241 5.1.2.1 組織化…………………………………………………………………………241 5.1.2.2 持續化…………………………………………………………………………242 5.1.2.3 議題化…………………………………………………………………………242 5.1.2.4 司法化…………………………………………………………………………243 5.2 法律修正方向與司法審查基準……………………………………………………………243 5.2.1 國際人權公約與內國法律……………………………………………………………243 5.2.2 制定反歧視法？………………………………………………………………………244 5.2.3 司法審查基準…………………………………………………………………………245 表次 表1-1：同性戀者權利保障議題一覽表 ………………………………………………………………11 表2-1：Romer v. Evans案判決意見一覽表……………………………………………………………96 表2-2：美國最高法院三重審查基準一覽表…………………………………………………………106 表3-1：Bowers v. Hardwick案判決意見一覽表………………………………………………………136 表4-1：Baehr v. Lewin案判決意見一覽表……………………………………………………………189 表4-2：Baehr v. Miike案判決意見一覽表……………………………………………………………193 表4-3：種族、性別與性傾向歧視之類推過程一覽表………………………………………………194 表4-4：司法院大法官有關性別平等解釋案要旨……………………………………………………232 / "Lesbian and gay rights are human rights!" Is this just a political slogan to be chanted outsides legislatures? Is this just a fairytale, or are there legal arguments to support the claim that the right to be free from sexual orientation discrimination is a human right? In particular, can national constitutions and international human right treaties be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination against same-sex sexual activity ("sodomy"), gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual individuals, and same-sex couples? In this thesis, the author attempts to answer these questions by examining of these most commonly used arguments in favour of such an interpretation: sexual orientation is an "immutable status", sexual orientation is a "fundamental choice" or part of "privacy", sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination and "sexual orientation discrimination". However, the core argument is always "Equal Protection". Chapter I explains the motives of research, the goals to be achieved, the methods to be used, and the structure of this thesis. Chapter II investigates what and how to build the basic theories to justify the claim that lesbians and gay men, as well as heterosexuals, shall be equally protected under the constitution. Because this issue is largely invisible or marginalised in academic debate, the author first provides an invaluable exploration of sociology, sociobiology, and sexual science, in order to break up the stereotypes of lesbians and gay men. According to the theory of Equal Protection, the author concluded that "sexual orientation discrimination" deserved the strict or heightened scrutiny, i.e., either the discrimination achieves the compelling or overriding governmental interest, necessarily and narrowly tailored, or it should be hold unconstitutional. Applying the basic theories, then the author devoted two chapters to specific issues, particularly, and focused on sodomy law and same-sex marriage. Chapter III examines the constitutionality of sodomy law. According to the "Harm Principle", the author doesn't think that sexual activities between consenting adults should be criminalized. Although sodomy law is plainly neutral, i.e., applicable for men and women, homosexual and heterosexual individuals, the author found that, in practice, sodomy law always criminalize lesbian and gay men. The author also discussed relevant articles of Taiwan's Penal Code, especially the newly revised articles of sex crime-crime of "disturbing sexual autonomy". Chapter IV scrutinizes the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The author first analyzed why people are always reluctant to recognize the same-sex marriage, and reiterate the so-called "slippery slope" arguments. The judiciary around the world never decided clearly that lesbians and gay men could legally wed, until the Hawaii Supreme Court held the Hawaii Revised Statutes §572-1 unconstitutional. Inspiringly by a recent development that the Canada Supreme Court declared positively the word "spouse" does not exclusively mean the combination of a man and a woman. This is , in indeed, a milestone in rhetoric. According to the "per se rule", the author also strongly criticized the "Defense of Marriage Act"(DOMA), and claimed that DOMA should be held unconstitutional. After comparing the institutions substantially protected same-sex couples, i.e., "registered partnership" or "domestic partnership", the author concluded such institutions as phase work. However, the final task is to make lesbians and gay men legally wed, just like "human being in love". Chapter V summarized the findings and suggested measures for further improvement. The author hopes to remind domestic gay organizations of the importance to use judicial approach solving the issue of equal protection for lesbian and gay men. After bloody wars and tragic disasters, why people can not learn to treat "others" as "selves"? Some day, lesbians and gay men can walk hand in hand with one's love in bright sunshine. Wish is not a dream. Keywords: Gay; Lesbian; Homosexuality; Queer; Equal Protection; Review Standards; Same-Sex Marriage; Sodomy; Privacy; Liberalism; Economic Analysis of Law; Social Constructionalism; Defense of Marriage Act.

No description available.

Les objectifs du droit de la faillite sont divers. Ils évoluent dans le temps et dans l’espace. Vouloir éliminer le mauvais débiteur qui ne paie pas ses dettes et le punir, garantir le règlement des créanciers, tels sont les objectifs traditionnels. Assurer la survie de l'entreprise et prévenir les difficultés, tels sont les objectifs modernes. La diversité entraîne la hiérarchie des objectifs. L’étude comparative oppose les systèmes pro-débiteur et pro-créancier en fonction de la finalité prioritaire retenue. Elle montre que les objectifs des législations convergent vers le sauvetage des entreprises. Le droit fédéral des Etats-Unis, fondé sur la philosophie du nouveau départ, inspire les législateurs européens. L’analyse économique du droit, renouvelle la question des objectifs du droit de la faillite au regard de l’efficience, critère de légalité. Elle explique la convergence. La recherche de l’efficacité procédurale et substantielle guide l’orientation de la Commission européenne dans l’optique de promouvoir le marché unique. Ainsi, le consensus sur l’objectif de sauvegarde de l’entreprise rend possible l’harmonisation des règles substantielles au niveau européen. La révision du règlement (CE) n°1346/2000 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité confirme l’adhésion générale à l’idée de seconde chance. L’opposition entre systèmes pro-débiteur et pro-créancier s’estompe et laisse place à un système mixte. Chaque législation essaye de tendre vers la conciliation des intérêts contradictoires, ce qui entraîne le déplacement de la valeur du respect de la parole donnée, vers le concept plus difficile à cerner, mais qui fonde la force obligatoire des obligations: la confiance. / The objectives of bankruptcy law are varied and evolve over time and situation. Eradicating and punishing bad debtors and guaranteeing payment to creditors are traditional goals. Ensuring the survival of the company and preventing difficulties are modern goals. This diversity leads to a hierarchy of objectives. A comparative study contrasts pro-debtor and pro-creditor systems according to the priority of their identified objectives. It shows that the objective of legislations tends towards the salvaging of companies. Federal US law, founded on the principle of fresh start, inspires laws in Europe. Economic analysis of law reiterates the question of the objectives of bankruptcy law from the perspective of an efficient legal standard, explaining this tendency. The search for procedural and substantial efficiency guides the European Commission in the promotion of a single market. Therefore, consensus on the objective of salvaging the company makes harmonization of the substantive rules at the European level possible. The revision of Regulation (EC) N°1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings confirms the general acceptance of the idea of a second chance. The opposition between pro-debtor and pro-creditor systems diminishes, giving way to a mixed system. Each law attempts to move towards the reconciliation of conflicting interests, leading to the displacement of the value of respect for the word towards the concept, more difficult to define, but which founds binding obligation: trust.

L’internationalisation des échanges économiques inscrit les économies nationales dans un ordre mondialisé. Ce contexte de la mondialisation intensifie les échanges commerciaux et la concurrence des entreprises. Celles-ci doivent perpétuellement lutter pour survivre sur le marché. Pour ne pas disparaître, elles doivent devenir plus fortes, et plus grandes. Elles sont dès lors contraintes à un développement externe. Ce mode de croissance externe se matérialise par des opérations de concentration : fusion, scission, apports partiels d’actifs, cession de contrôle, offres publiques. Il s’agit d’étudier les fusions-acquisitions. Depuis quelques années, ces opérations sont devenues une réalité de la vie des affaires. Relayées à chaque réalisation - du moins les plus significatives - par les médias, elles sont le plus souvent connues pour la synergie qu’elles réalisent et/ou les conséquences sociales qu’elles emportent. Traitées dans les manuels de sciences économiques et de sciences juridiques de manière générale, les fusions-acquisitions sont rarement envisagées sous l’angle exclusif du droit pénal. C’est précisément l’objet de cette étude. Néanmoins, seules les opérations de fusions, scissions, et offres publiques, en droit pénal sont envisagées. Les risques juridiques liés à ces opérations, en particulier les risques pénaux, se situent à tous les étages. Dans le cadre de ces opérations, le droit pénal a vocation à protéger les différents intérêts en jeu, c’est-à-dire les divers intérêts des acteurs, personnes physiques ou morales. Mais certains obstacles obligent à une application mesurée du droit pénal en la matière. Le premier est la notion de personnalité juridique, fondement de plusieurs principes de droit pénal ; le second est une conjugaison de plusieurs difficultés : La diversité et/ou la spécificité des réglementations applicables à ces opérations, le caractère souvent international de ces dernières et la portée limitée du droit pénal accessoire. Cette étude se propose de concilier ces obstacles avec la nécessité et les exigences d’une vraie, juste et meilleure répression lors de la réalisation de ces opérations de ces opérations de fusions-acquisitions. En ce sens, notre contribution insiste sur un renouvellement de l’application du droit pénal lors de la réalisation de ces opérations. Deux principales pistes sont envisagées : considérer le caractère économique de l’opération pour consacrer une pénalisation – entendue ici comme l’action de sanctionner et de renforcer la sanction - des fusions-acquisitions eu égard au droit pénal économique ; prendre appui sur la notion d’entreprise pour apporter une réponse pénale adaptée à la répression. C’est à cette double condition que le droit pénal aura un réel intérêt dans le cadre de ces opérations. / The Internationalization of economical exchanges inscribes national’s economies in a globalized order. This globalized context intensifies the business’s trades and the competition between companies. These have to perpetually struggle to survive on the market. To avoid disappearance, they have to become stronger and bigger. Thenceforth, they are constrained to an external growth. This type of external growth materializes itself by concentrations: such as mergers, scissions, acquisitions, partial transfers of assets, transfers of control, takeovers. We talk about mergers and acquisitions. For some years now, these transactions had become a reality in a business’s life. Relay at each realization – at least the most significant ones – by the media, they are most known for the synergy they realized and/or social consequencies they cary. Generally studied in economics sciences and legal sciences manuals, mergers and acquisitions are rarely considered exclusively by criminal approach. This is precisely the purpose of this study. Nevertheless, only concentrations such as mergers scissions and takeovers will be considered in this study. Legal risks tied to such transactions, in particular criminal ones, are found at all stages. In the context of those concentrations, criminal Law is intended to protect all different interests in presence, meaning actors, natural persons as well as legal persons. But some certain obstacles call for a measured or moderated application of criminal Law. The first one is the legal personality, the basis of multiples criminal Law principles. The second is a combination of many or multiples difficulties: the diversity and/or the specificity of the applicable rules to those transactions, usually the international character of the latter ones and the limited scope of the Law on secondary penalties. This study is proposing to conciliate those obstacles with the necessity of and the requirements of a true, just and better criminal repression during these transactions realization. For this purpose, our contribution lay stress on renewal of the criminal Law application during the mergers and acquisitions. Two mains avenues will be considered: consider the economic character of the transactions to apply a penalization; intended here as the act of sanctioning and re-enforce the penalty of mergers and acquisitions in view of economic criminal Law; laying on the notion of enterprise to bring a penal answer adapted to the penalty. It will be at this double condition that the criminal Law will have a real interest in the frame, limit of those transactions.

Die Arbeit befasst sich mit drei konkreten Problemstellungen digitaler Vermittlungsplattformen (Amazon, ebay, etc.) im allgemeinen Privatrecht: die Haftung für die Erfüllung des Vertrages zwischen Anbieter und Käufer; die Haftung für Integritätsschäden des Käufers, die durch das erworbene Produkt verursacht werden; und die Zulässigkeit von Selbstbegünstigungspraktiken der Plattform gegenüber den Anbietern. Dabei werden aus methodischer Perspektive von law and economics Voraussetzungen eines effizienten gesetzlichen Rahmens ermittelt. Dieser wird der aktuellen Gesetzeslage bzw. anstehenden gesetzlichen Reformvorhaben gegenübergestellt. Die erste Frage der Erfüllungshaftung stellt sich vor dem Hintergrund, dass Plattformen im Vermittlungsprozess zwischen Anbieter und Käufer eine aktive, steuernde Rolle spielen und damit auf die Erfüllung erheblichen Einfluss nehmen können. Gleichzeitig weisen die AGB der Plattform dieser keine Haftung zu, weil sie nicht Vertragspartei sei. Mit dieser vertraglichen Gestaltung will die Plattform auch einer Haftung für Integritätsschäden entgehen. Bei der Selbstbegünstigung schließlich tritt die Plattform selbst als Anbieter auf. Mit ihrer Doppelrolle als Anbieter und Marktorganisator kann sie andere Anbieter besonders lukrativer Produkte von der Plattform ausschließen und selbst an deren Stelle treten. Trotz ihrer vermeintlichen Schiedsrichterrolle greift die Plattform damit in das Marktgeschehen ein und leitet die Gewinnaussichten mancher Anbieter auf sich selbst um. Die ökonomische Analyse legt für das allgemeine Privatrecht nahe, dass – anders als marktbeherrschende oder gatekeeper Plattformen – „normale“ Plattformen nicht mit zwingendem Recht reguliert werden sollten, sondern vielmehr Transparenzregeln der zielführende Ansatz sind. Diese sind bereits im geltenden Privatrecht im Wesentlichen vorhanden. / This thesis deals with three private law problems of digital intermediary platforms (amazon, ebay, etc.): liability for the fulfilment of the seller-buyer-contract; liability for damages caused by the purchased product; and the legitimacy of self-preferencing practices of the platform against the sellers. Using the methodology of law and economics, an efficient legal framework for these phenomena is identified. The current legal situation and projects of legal reform are reflected on the basis of these normative results. The first question whether platforms should be liable for the fulfilment of the seller-buyer-contract is discussed against the background that platforms play an active, controlling role in the matching process between seller and buyer and can thus influence fulfilment. In contrast, the platforms’ terms 2 3 and conditions consider the platform not a party to the contract and thus not liable. With its terms the platform tries to evade product liability, too. Finally, in the case of self-preferencing, the platform itself acts as a seller. With its dual role as seller and market organiser, it can exclude sellers of particularly lucrative products from the platform and itself take their place. Despite its supposed role as referee, the platform intervenes in its own market and diverts the profit prospects of some sellers to itself. Economic analysis of general private law suggests that – unlike market dominating or gatekeeper platforms – “normal” platforms and their contractual framework should not be regulated with mandatory rules. Rather, rules of transparency prove to be expedient. In essence, such rules are already existing in current private law.