本研究之目的係探討國家賠償法於軍事機關之運作，從公務員執行職務行使公權力致生損害之國家賠償責任（即人的責任）與公有公共設施設置或管理欠缺致生損害之國家賠償責任（即物的責任）之兩大主軸討論，並比較日本裁判所之判決與我國對類似案件相關爭點判斷之異同，據以建構軍事機關國家賠償責任之類型，減少可能發生國家賠償責任之爭議。 全文共分為五章：第一章為緒論，說明本研究之動機與目的、研究範圍與限制、研究架構與方法。第二章為國家賠償制度概述，就國家賠償責任之定義及類型、適用之限制、國家賠償責任制度之發展過程、國家賠償責任之理論、公務員責任與國家賠償責任之關係予以討論，藉以確立國家賠償責任認定之法理基礎；並探討日本國家賠償責任成立之案件與我國國賠法制之異同處，藉以參酌我國同類案件之分析與比較。第三章研析闡述特別權力關係之起源、內涵、變遷等，探討公務員、學生、受刑人、軍人在此關係下基本權利之限制與保護。第四章為軍事機關與國家賠償之分析，以第二章國家賠償制度之法理為基礎，彙整相關法令規範，配合相關之法院國家賠償案例，檢討軍事機關公權力行為致生國賠責任之法理與探討軍事設施設置、軍事設施管理造成人民財產之侵害與救濟賠償之認定，並分析軍人撫卹與國家賠償競合之問題。第五章為結論與建議。本章分別就各章之內容總結，具以建立完整之軍事機關國家賠償責任體系，俾提供軍中處理國家賠償案件時之參考；另就研究發現予以歸納評析，並提出建議，例如建立軍事機關公權力行為之行政程序、確實督導軍事設施之設置管理程序，以減少軍中公權力行為之侵權情事，強化其保護照顧義務等等，希冀今後軍事機關對人及對物之管理，能符合依法行政原理之要求。 / This study aims at discussing the State Compensation Law in military authority from two perspectives, including the liability for damages arising from the act of employees of the government acting within the scope of their office (the liability of people), and from a defect in the installation or management of government-owned public facility (the liability of objects). A case study comparison was done between the court of Japan and Taiwan, where the verdicts from both courts were compared so as to construct a pattern for state’s liability in military compensation. We hope that in this way, controversy over state compensation liability could be controlled. The essay is divided into five chapters: the first is introduction, illustrating the motive and purpose, scope and limitation, and structure and method of this study. In chapter two, we will outline the state compensation system, with regard to its definition, classification, applicability, development, theory, and the relationship between the liability of state and public servants, in order to establish a jurisprudential foundation. Then, we will discuss the differences and similarities between the compensation claims in Japan and our country’s State Compensation Law, while analyzing similar cases in Taiwan. The origin, content, changes of special power relation will be examined in chapter three, where the limitation and protection of basic rights of public servants, students, prison inmates, and soldiers are discussed. In chapter four, we will use the jurisprudential foundation stated in chapter two to analyze the military authority and state compensation. By compiling relevant regulations and state compensation claims, we will do a judicial review on the state compensation claims as a result of military authority, the definition of compensation and damages arising from the installation or management of military facility, and the competition between military indemnity and state compensation. Chapter five will be conclusion and suggestion, containing appraisal of each chapter and constructing a system of complete state compensation liability in military authority, as a reference for future claims. In addition, important remarks and suggestion will be provided, such as to establish administrative procedure for military authority and management procedure of military facility. This is to prevent the violation of right from the military, and enhance their obligation to protect and attend, hoping the military could build the rule of law when managing objects and actions of people.

80年代，我國在解嚴之時，民主化運動與言論自由的保障相得益彰，幾乎同一時期，司法院大法官作成釋字第187號解釋，對於特別權力關係敲響第一記警鐘，大法官逐步正視特別權力關係理論對於權利保障與憲政制度的影響，在司法實踐上似乎邁向突破特別權力關係理論長久以來的桎梏。然探其實際，在大法官與學者相繼對於特別權力關係理論加以解構後，公務員仍未能如同民主化後的一般人民一樣享有「充分且必要」的言論自由。 在面對公務員言論爭議的案件中，我國現行法制透過概括的職務義務對於公務員言論自由施加限制。在具體個案的審查中，實務上顯然並不認為公務員享有與一般人民相同的言論自由，就公務員言論應有的界限與限制的標準，也未建立可茲遵循的審查原則。造成此一現象的原因或許在於特別權力關係尚未真正地被揚棄，學者與實務對於公務員「有權利即有救濟」的闡述，過於囿限於「服公職權」，並且在檢討、揚棄特別權力關係的過程中，仍停留在形式法治國的概念，忽略了基本權利實質限制的檢討。 本文借鏡美國法制的發展，嘗試為我國公務員言論自由的審查提出基本原則。在衡量公務員言論自由保障時，應考量「公務員言論的類型」與「公務員的職務內容」，並以「言論表達的時間與地點」與「言論的公開程度」作為輔助判斷因素，衡酌公務員言論對於政府制度目的的影響。在此一審查模型下，並非所有的公務員言論皆受到一致的限制。 法哲學家Dworkin教授曾經說過，在言論自由的困難案件中，法律人必然需要釐清「憲法為何保障言論自由」這個根本性的問題，才能決定言論自由的困難案件應該如何解決。期待本文的觀察建議可以使得實務在審查公務員言論自由的案件時，意識到公務員言論可能具有的公益面向—使政府資訊自由地流向公眾，促進政府課責與民主審議—從而能夠適當的權衡相關利益，賦予公務員言論應有的保障。 / In the 1980s, as the Martial law was lifted, the level of freedom of speech enjoyed by the people was increased alongside with Taiwan’s democratization movement. In the same period, the Constitutional Court rendered the landmark Interpretation No.187 against the theory of special power relation (besonderes Gewaltverhaltnis, the Theory). The Court was concerned with the negative effect of the Theory on constitutionally protected rights and liberties. However, even though the Court had since made several similar interpretations and seemed to gradually move toward abandoning the Theory entirely, Taiwan’s public employees have not yet been able to enjoy the same level of freedom of speech as the general public has. Under the current legal system, civil servants’ freedom of speech was restricted by broad and generalized professional duties specified in the Public Functionary Service Act. In addition, courts do not take the view that public employees and the general public enjoy the same level of freedom of expression, and do not establish a clear principle to determine what public employees can or cannot speak. Perhaps it is because the Theory has lingered on. Or it is because in the process of abandoning the Theory, courts have paid too much attention on the right to holding public offices and ignored other rights, such as the right to free speech. Learning from the public employee speech jurisprudence in the United States, this thesis tries to articulate some basic principles when reviewing cases concerning civil servants’ freedom of speech. This thesis believes that not all public employee speech should be restricted and suppressed. In deciding whether to protect civil servants’ freedom of expression, courts should consider two main factors: “the type of the speech involved” and “the responsibilities of the civil servant’s position.” In addition, factors such as “the time and place of the speech” and “degree of openness of the speech” should also be taken into account when deciding whether public employee speech has negative impact on the government in fulfilling its responsibilities. Professor Ronald Dworkin, an American legal philosopher, once remarked that in hard cases, “lawyers and judges must try to find a political justification of the First Amendment that fits most past constitutional practice and also provides a compelling reason why we should grant freedom of speech.” The thesis hopes that the observation and suggestion made in this research can help courts be aware of the public interests in protecting public employees’ freedom of speech—ensuring free flow of information from the government to the public and improving government accountability and democratic deliberation. Then can the courts better balance the relevant interests and ultimately afford proper protection to public employee speech.