配音諧擬的原住民族轉型正義： 一個戰後原運法律史的考察與批判（1945-2022）

2016年8月1日（臺灣原住民日）蔡英文總統向臺灣原住民族道歉，承諾要推動原住民族轉型正義與歷史正義。隔年，立法院通過《促進轉型正義條例》（下稱《促轉條例》），並依法設置獨立機關「促進轉型正義委員會」，原運行動者、學者與立法者紛紛爭論《促轉條例》是否要包含原住民族轉型正義，開啟了「一起轉」與「分開轉」的立法論爭。與此同時，2017年原運發動傳統領域抗爭，反對〈原住民族土地或部落範圍土地劃設辦法〉將傳統領域範圍排除私有地，進而以「原住民族轉型正義」的權利語彙展開法律動員。留意的是，權利的形成與創造並非一夜發生，必須考察戰後原運的發展軌跡，藉由法律動員和權利構框的理論視野，才得以理解原運行動者的法律論述與權利語彙是在何種歷史脈絡和政治社會情境下推動。因此，本論文嘗試以戰後原運法律史的書寫文化去梳理戰後原運法律改革的動態發展，試圖反省戰後原運的主流歷史敘事，並以部落批判種族理論作為本論文的政治道德立場，批判性檢視遷佔者殖民主義的歷史位置。因而，戰後原運法律史所勾勒的法律景觀是殖民與抵抗的互動關係。換言之，法律雖是遷佔者政權用來壓迫原住民族的制度性工具，但同時也是原住民族得以對抗遷佔者殖民主義的資源與武器，因此戰後原運法律史既是一部殖民壓迫的法律史，也是解殖抵抗的法律史。首先，本論文考察戰後威權體制的殖民結構，透過原住民族知識政治菁英的法律故事去描繪處於分散位置的零星行動者，以及正在形成中的原住民族社會關係網絡如何具備解殖抵抗的能量，甚至得以作為戰後原住民族權利運動的延續，其中包含自治自決的想望、土地權利的追尋乃至於原住民族主體性的追求。然而，戰後「原住民族權利」的解殖構框在其法律動員過程中，卻受到「多元文化憲政秩序」的影響，並徹底改變原住民族法律改革的面貌。從原住民族憲法運動到原住民族權利法制化的發展來看，不論是多元文化主義的法律改革，還是法律多元主義的習慣法追尋，原住民族仍須受限於「多元文化憲政秩序」之中。另一方面，本論文同步探索「原住民族轉型正義」作為一種策略性權利構框的發展與意義。從民間社會、立法場域、學術社群到官方實踐的考察中，本文主張「原住民族轉型正義」之於「（後獨裁）轉型正義」是一種配音諧擬的權利競逐關係，這樣的關係是一種粗略複製的模仿、類比與挑戰。前者是剷除殖民主義以實踐原住民族的解殖願景；後者是處理威權主義以維繫「自由民主憲政秩序」。申言之，追求「解殖民」的原住民族轉型正義與落實「自由民主憲政秩序」的（後獨裁）轉型正義存在著類似的論述結構：「還原歷史真相、促進族群／社會和解」，只是兩者對於「轉型」與「正義」有不同的詮釋批判與制度實踐。然而，不論是「原住民族權利」還是「原住民族轉型正義」的解殖實踐，都無法輕易擺脫遷佔者殖民主義。本文以戰後原運法律史的分析視角指出，「原住民族轉型正義」作為戰後「原住民族權利」運動的延續，其權利構框的轉向是利用法律與政治機會結構突破遷佔者殖民主義的限制。但是，遷佔者政權卻反而透過「多元文化憲政秩序」與「自由民主憲政秩序」的憲法語境進行自我超越的伎倆，分別解消「原住民族權利」與「原住民族轉型正義」的解殖性格，進而將遷佔者殖民主義透過轉化而保存的方式存於臺灣的憲政體制之中。因此，為了走出「原住民族轉型正義」面臨的困境，本論文試圖透過部落批判種族理論的法律反省與差異政治的思考，嘗試建構原住民族轉型正義的理論關懷。就「轉型」而言，必須留意臺灣轉型正義的重層複合結構，並同時揭露遷佔者殖民主義的治理邏輯；關於「正義」，則必須留意多元交織性與剷除特權的重要性，並批判（後獨裁）轉型正義的自由主義性格與羅爾斯式的分配正義觀，以開展差異化的原住民族轉型正義實踐。

關鍵字

促進轉型正義條例；臺灣原住民族運動；原住民族轉型正義；部落批判種族理論；遷佔者殖民主義；戰後原運法律史；權利構框

並列摘要

On August 1, 2016 (Taiwan Indigenous Peoples Day), President Tsai Ing-wen apologized to Taiwan's indigenous peoples and pledged to promote transitional justice and historical justice for indigenous peoples. The following year, the Legislative Yuan passed the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice and established the independent agency "Transitional Justice Commission" in accordance with the law. Indigenous rights activists, scholars, and legislators began to debate whether the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice should include indigenous transitional justice, leading to a legislative dispute between the positions of "together model" and "separate model." At the same time, in 2017, indigenous rights activists launched a protest against the " Regulations on Land or Tribal Land Allocation for Indigenous Peoples," opposing the exclusion of traditional territory from private land. This led to a legal mobilization based on the rights discourse of "indigenous transitional justice." It is important to note that the formation and creation of rights does not happen overnight. One must examine the trajectory of Taiwan indigenous movement in post-war era, and through the theoretical lens of legal mobilization and rights framing, it becomes possible to understand the legal discourse used by indigenous rights activists. This understanding can be gained by considering the historical context and political-social circumstances in which these ideas were advanced. Therefore, this paper attempts to outline the dynamic development of post-war indigenous legal reforms through the lens of legal history of Taiwan's indigenous movement in the post-war era. It seeks to critically reflect on the mainstream historical narratives of Taiwan indigenous movement in post-war era, and adopts a tribal critical race theory as its political and moral standpoint, critically examining the historical position of settler colonialism. Thus, the legal landscape outlined by legal history of Taiwan's indigenous movement in the post-war era reflects the interaction between colonialism and resistance. In other words, while the law is a tool of the settler state used to oppress indigenous peoples, it is also a resource for indigenous people to resist settler colonialism. This paper first examines the colonial structure of the post-war authoritarian regime, using the legal narratives of indigenous political elites to depict scattered individual activists and the emerging networks of indigenous peoples’ social relations. These networks possess the potential for decolonizing resistance and even serve as a continuation of the post-war indigenous rights movement. This includes aspirations for autonomy and self-determination, the pursuit of land rights, and the quest for indigenous subjectivity. However, the decolonizing framework of "indigenous peoples’ rights" in the post-war period was influenced by the "constitutional order of multiculturalism" during its legal mobilization process, which fundamentally changed the landscape of indigenous legal reforms. Looking at the development from the constitutional movement launched by Taiwan's indigenous peoples to the legalization of indigenous people’s rights, whether it was the legal reforms driven by multiculturalism or the pursuit of customs through legal pluralism, indigenous peoples remain constrained within the boundaries of the "constitutional order of multiculturalism." On the other hand, this paper also explores the development and significance of "indigenous transitional justice" as a strategic rights framing. Through an examination of civil society, legislative fields, academic communities, and official practices, this paper argues that "indigenous transitional justice" is a kind of "dubbing" in relation to "post-authoritarian transitional justice." This relationship involves a rough reproduction of imitation, analogy, and challenge. The former seeks to eradicate colonialism in order to realize the decolonization of indigenous peoples, while the latter aims to address authoritarianism in order to maintain a "constitutional order of liberal democracy." In other words, indigenous transitional justice that pursues "decolonization" and post-authoritarian transitional justice that implements a "constitutional order of liberal democracy" share a similar discursive structure: "restoring historical truth and promoting ethnic/social reconciliation." However, the two differ in their interpretation and critique of "transition" and "justice," as well as in their institutional practices. However, both the decolonizing practices of "indigenous peoples’ rights" and "indigenous transitional justice" cannot easily escape the constraints of settler colonialism. This paper, through the analytical lens of legal history of Taiwan's indigenous movement in the post-war era, argues that "indigenous transitional justice," as a continuation of the "indigenous rights" movement, represents a shift in the rights framing that seeks to take advantage of legal and political opportunity structures to overcome the limitations imposed by settler colonialism. However, the settler state, in turn, employs the constitutional contexts of "constitutional order of multiculturalism" and "constitutional order of liberal democracy" as a tactic of self-supersession, which effectively neutralizes the decolonizing character of both "indigenous rights" and "indigenous transitional justice." In doing so, settler colonialism is preserved within Taiwan's constitutional government system through transformation. Hence, in order to overcome the challenges faced by "indigenous transitional justice," this paper attempts to construct a theoretical framework for indigenous transitional justice through legal reflection based on tribal critical race theory and the politics of difference. Regarding "transition," it is crucial to pay attention to the complex structure of Taiwan's transitional justice, while simultaneously exposing the governmentality of settler colonialism. Concerning "justice," it is necessary to emphasize the importance of intersectionality and the eradication of privilege, and to critique the liberal character of post-authoritarian transitional justice and Rawlsian theories of distributive justice. This would help foster a differentiated practice of indigenous transitional justice.

並列關鍵字

the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice ； Taiwan indigenous movement ； indigenous transitional justice ； tribal critical race theory ； settler colonialism ； legal history of Taiwan's indigenous movement in the post-war era ； right framing