The project underlying this dissertation aims at analyzing three pro-animal-rights theories, evaluating the theories, and outlining an alternative theoretical account of animal rights. The analytical categories are justification and function of animal rights, the definition of the right holder, and the resolution approach to rights conflict. The categories are applied to a naturalist, a theocentric, and a contractarian approach to defend animal rights. The evaluation is substantiated by the assumption that rights are meant to protect less powerful beings against more powerful aggressors. The constructive segment is an investigation into what extent identified disadvantages of the theories can be avoided by outlining a new model for animal rights. The analyses and evaluation suggest that all three theories are at risk of contradicting the proper function of rights-based theories. Tom Regan’s naturalist account of animal rights includes a logical possibility to sacrifice less capable beings for the sake of more capable beings. Andrew Linzey’s theocentric case for animal rights may sometimes mean that vulnerable human persons should be sacrificed for more powerful non-human beings. Mark Rowlands’ outlined contractarian model, further reconstructed in this work, fails to provide a way to resolve rights conflicts, making the function of rights inapplicable to conflicts. In conclusion, it is suggested that defining the right holder as a self-preservative being can be supported by, at least, the contractarian rationale. That would also conform to the proper function of rights-based theories. It is also suggested that this means that rights conflicts should be resolved by a voluntary sacrifice of the most powerful being. Practical circumstances should be created where such voluntarity is both genuine and rationally possible.

Nagrinėsime lygties radijinę dalį. Ieškosime radijinės lygties sprendinių, t.y. spręsime kraštinį uždavinį su nulinėmis kraštinėmis sąlygomis nuliniame ir be galo nutolusiame taške. Ieškosime energijos tikrinių reikšmių ir tas reikšmes atitinkančių tikrinių funkcijų. / Explore the equation of radijinę. Look radijinės equation, namely Judging from the extreme challenge of the zero boundary conditions nuliniame and infinitely remote point. Look for the energy eigenvalues and the corresponding values for proper function.

司法院釋字第520號解釋於理由書指出：「基於法治國原則，縱令實質正當亦不可取代程序合法」，即一語道出程序正義之重要性。 民間參與公共建設具專業性、複雜性及高風險性、隔代性、利益衝突等特性，在政府與民間合作理念的推動下，法律規定模式已呈現由「條件式」的模式轉向「目的式」模式，致使政府合作對象的甄審（選）成為一種高度專業趨向之判斷，並且可能陷於「決策於未知之中」的困境。民間參與公共建設的推動上，除技術層面之實體審查標準外，實應認真思考面對決策的程序問題，藉由程序之提升，用以補足實體規範的不足。據此，有關引進民間參與公共建設之法規，甄審程序選出的最佳締約對象、最優申請案件或最優申請人「是否即屬適當」，應思考甄審（或評選）程序與組織設計，是否妥適。 本文擬由正當法律程序於美國及日本之發展出發，藉以了解其規範基礎與發展情形，並分析我國司法實務有關正當法律程序原則之解釋，理解我國對於正當法律程序之內涵與要求。其後聚焦行政實務上經常引用作為民間參與公共建設案件辦理依據之獎參條例、採購法及促參法，就其甄審、評選或評審程序與爭議處理程序檢視正當法律程序實踐情形。 本於基本權保障意旨及法律承認權利之保障，基本上本文認同至少應有一最低限度之保障（即聽證權）。至於其他要求為何？本於民間參與公共建設之興建或營運，涉及政府有限資源之分配及申請人(營業自由、契約自由)與使用者（生命、身體、財產）之基本權保障相關，應可由司法院釋字第384號解釋及釋字第709號解釋推導出「組織」要求，而其他如公正作為(迴避、禁止程序外接觸)、受告知權、說明理由及資訊公開，亦正是落實組織適法與聽證權，所不可或缺之要素。