在現代化與全球化的背景之下，在採取集中式違憲審查體制而區分憲法法院（大法官）和專業法院的我國，專業法院應承擔如何的角色功能──其與大法官之間應有如何的內部分工關係？又應如何與大法官共同行使「司法權」，以形塑司法部門與政治部門之間的憲政關係？專業法院的憲法及法律解釋，在方法上應如何因應現代化與全球化的挑戰？角色功能的定位又如何體現於解釋方法的運用？簡言之，現代化與全球化的影響之下，專業法院的角色功能以及解釋方法的運用，二個元素如何互動，乃是本文的核心關懷。
本文第二章首先回顧大陸法系在現代化和全球化的過程，以法典化為「動力核心」的法釋義學，面臨了價值趨於多元與社會快速變遷的挑戰，而立法者面對福利、管制和風險，因為沒有能力具體回應，結果把更沈重的職責託付給司法者。另一方面，歐陸法釋義學在價值法學的輝煌成果之上，亟待強化與社會事實對話的能力，故本文整理有關「結果取向的解釋方法」的文獻，蓋其有作為事實與規範之間對話介面的功能。基於前述，司法者由於法律適用範圍的擴張而介入政治、經濟與社會事務，形成「政治的司法化(judicialization of politics)」，乃是各國法治無法避免的共通現象。但從歐美法治在循序漸進的發展之中，其司法者具有足夠的自主性，而在給付實質正義時維持一定的中立性，不成為特定政治或社會利益的工具。但我國司法尚未浸淫於成熟的法治文化，驟然面對法規範體系的變化和政策形成機能的賦與，「透明」的方法論有防範司法脫序風險的功能，並形成司法決策正當性的基礎。
第三章則進入憲法法院體制之下，司法內部分權的分析。首先，介紹Stone Sweet教授的理論模型，使本文得以嘗試暫時拋棄現有制度的成見，探討以憲法裁決者為中心的司法權力，如何與政治部門形成「憲法對話(constitutional dialogue)」的互動模式。接著，回顧憲法法院的理念發展以及憲法訴訟的制度功能，說明憲法法院無可取代的核心角色功能，乃是基於人權保障的理念，作為憲法對話的樞紐：包括與政治部門的對話關係，以及對專業法院的控制關係。同採集中式違憲審查的我國、韓國或義大利，憲法法院都在衝突與磨合中建立了與專業法院的分工與對話關係。在這樣的對話架構之中，面對現代化與全球化的法制環境，則需要合憲解釋方法的進一步深化，使兩種法院角色功能的扮演更為適切。
有鑑於此，第四章探討二者對於合憲解釋方法的不同操作模式。參考韓國與義大利的經驗，可知合憲解釋方法的操作，實反映了不同的歷史、制度背景以及民主進展階段之中，司法內部的不同（憲法）對話模式，進一步確認了本文認為解釋方法作為憲法對話工具的觀點：專業法院同時受憲法（含大法官解釋）與法律拘束，其主要職責不在於非難立法者的政治意志，而係透過法律的解析，在憲法的框架秩序之下，最大程度上實現立法者的付託。從而，合憲法律解釋雖是大法官和專業法院的共同工具，但事實面的結果取向是專業法院的主要任務，專業法院應側重法律中概括條款的合憲法律解釋，強化事實面的論證品質，以具體化立法者所揭櫫的價值與政策方向。
從專業法院的角色功能觀之，概括條款的具體化對於其角色功能的適切扮演，具有重要意義。同時，行政法院面對行政機關基於立法者的概括授權所為的行政行為，使得行政法中概括條款的操作和民、刑法又呈現不同的樣貌，成為第五章的主題。比較分析美國行政法關於「恣意專斷」和「實質證據」標準的經典案例後，本文指出值得我國行政法院努力的審查模式：從立法者藉由概括條款揭櫫的政策目標出發，形成事實與證據基礎的審查方向與審查範圍，從而透過檢視行政行為的「合理性」，以確保其「合法性」。在此，透過概括條款的具體化，法律解釋成為規範與事實的互動平台，法院透過其與各種法律以外專業的對話能力，檢視行政行為所涉的事實及政策結果，實為結果取向方法的體現。 / This research is about the role and function of specialized courts, in contrast with those of the constitutional court, focusing on the method of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Closely related with this topic is the division of functions among the courts, determining their roles and functions, which in turn influences their methodology of interpretation, against the background of modernization and globalization.
Chapter 2 analyzes the challenge facing doctrinal analysis, or legal dogmatics, developed in the civil law tradition. Due to diversification of values and fast change of modern society, with which the lawmakers have been unable to cope, more power is delegated, with responsibility, to the judiciary. As a result, the legal dogmatics, which has been relatively mature for problems of values, still needs some advance in tools dealing with social issues concerning facts, especially the “outcome-oriented interpretation” introduced in this chapter; it serves as a platform on which the fact and the norm about the issue interacts. Through utilizing the methodology, the “transparency” of legal interpretation and process is enhanced, and the judicial power expanding into various social, economic and political affairs, a universal phenomenon known as “judicialization of politics”, is to some extent legitimized.
Chapter 3 probes into the division of power in the judicial regime with a constitutional court. Firstly introduced is a model of constitutional dialogue between the judicial and the political power, theorized by professor Stone Sweet. Secondly, the core function and purpose of constitutional court in the dialogue is depicted: the pivotal role in political-judicial dialogue and the within-judicial dialogue, in order to protect and promote human rights. Then a comparison with Korean and Italian experiences demonstrates that the dialogue relations are created through conflicts and accommodations between the powers, and that a more advanced methodology of “interpretation in conformity with the constitution” would assist in performing judicial roles and functions.
Chapter 4 further discusses the different application of “interpretation in conformity with the constitution.” The Korean and Italian experience shows that it reflects the historical and institutional contexts, and the phases of democratic progress. This research then confirms that specialized courts, with the interpretative methods as the tool for constitutional dialogue, should interpret statutes, specifically the abstract clauses in the statute, to conform with the constitution and fulfill legislative aims. And throughout this interpretation, the main focus should be clarification and argumentation concerning factual issues.
As far as the role and function of specialized courts is concerned, the concretization of abstract clauses in statutes is of fundamental importance, and chapter 5 is about its application by the administrative court, which is carried out differently from those by civil and criminal courts. After a comparative law analysis with American practice, it is suggested that abstract clauses, with the legislative goals clarified, be interpreted to specify the direction and scope of the evidential and factual support required by the reviewing court. In the process of review and interpretation, the court has to communicate with non-legal professions to check the factual and policy effects of administrative decisions, an exercise of the “outcome-oriented interpretation.”
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0099651038 |
| Creators | 謝長江, Hsieh, Chang Chiang |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0031 seconds