Abstract
¡@¡@Undeniably, since World War II, referendums have assumed new prominence in many places. For example, in Western Europe, the evolution of the European Community has appealed critically to referendum outcomes in some member nations. In Eastern Europe, the decisions of boundaries, sovereignties, and governing institutions have appealed mostly to referendums following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In Chile and South Africa, referendums helped new regimes emerge from old tyrannies. And in New Zealand and Italy, referendums have exposed the unpopularity of certain politicians and helped to transform the governing system. Therefore, referendums have been considered as an ideal way of increasing citizens¡¦ participation and deliberation on public issues, and this increase of citizens¡¦ participation due to referendums and other direct-democratic institutions has been seen as a step towards the further democratization of societies. But, when we speak of referendums, two terms of definition should be made clear. In some countries the term used has been plebiscites; in other countries the term used has been referendums. Because these two terms are often used alternatively, it produces the confusion of definition. Even so, no one has ever produced a clear distinction between these two terms. Therefore, this study tries to define these two terms as the beginning.
First, the purpose of this study is to analyze and explain the practice of the three- phased referendum from its meanings, definitions, and the experiences of implementation among all the countries.
(1) The first phase: to seek the plebiscite period of independence or sovereignty, such as, the countries in Asia and Africa in 1950s, the Former Soviet Republics during 1991-1993, and East Timor in 1999.
(2) The second phase: to seek the referendum period of anti-representative democratic system, such as, France in 1962, Italy in 1993, Chile in 1988, Brazil in 1933 ¡K , and so on.
(3) The third phase: to seek the initiative period of direct legislation, such as Switzerland and the American States after 1980s.
But there are two exceptions, Quebec and Taiwan, because their referendum developmental models are different from other countries. However, the author believes if Quebec and Taiwan want to solve their representative democratic system problems thoroughly, they have to seek plebiscite of independence or sovereignty in the end.
Second, the purpose of this study is to state and analyze the historical factors, opinions and developments of the referendum in Taiwan. And the controversy of constitutional reform triggered by appealing to sovereignty referendum is discussed, too.
Besides, this study analyzes the issue of local referendums recently caused by the fight between economic developments and environmental protections. By doing this, it points out the problems and the dilemmas of the referendum met in Taiwan and proposes the necessary thoughts and principles of the legalization of referendum in Taiwan.
Finally, the purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive, comparative constitutional-law analysis of the institution of the referendum and its relationship to national decision-making. Of course, the author hopes that some basic referendum models will be created in Taiwan.
Keywords: plebiscite; referendum; initiative; direct democracy
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NSYSU/oai:NSYSU:etd-0723103-160832 |
| Date | 23 July 2003 |
| Creators | Tsao, Chin-Tsang |
| Contributors | none, none, none |
| Publisher | NSYSU |
| Source Sets | NSYSU Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Archive |
| Language | Cholon |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.lib.nsysu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0723103-160832 |
| Rights | withheld, Copyright information available at source archive |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds