- 學位論文
首都憲政主義：台灣與南韓的形塑與比較
Capital City Constitutionalism：Comparison of shaping process in Taiwan, South Korea
摘要
「遷都」的議題的討論，不僅在台灣時有所聞，對世界各國而言，甚至是一個已展開確實行動的政策。2004年，南韓憲法法院對於進行中的首爾遷都政策，給予了違憲判決。此一判決提醒了眾人，「遷都」不僅僅是首都位置的變更，或是行政區劃的改變，而是背後擁有更多複雜因素的憲政議題。為能準確理解首都以及衍生的議題，必須得探討首都的意義、以及首都與其他區域的關係，再者，透過憲法處理首都爭議之時，同樣需探討憲法的功能、憲法與首都的關係，以及憲法處理首都爭議的過程，表彰了何種意義。最終，各國以憲法處理首都的過程與結果，有其相同與相異之處，而這是否反映了各國首都的意義以及歷史脈絡？即是本文的探討重點。 本論文首先探討首都本身，首都與國家統一的連結，以及資源傾注首都的因素，產生了「聯合統一群體」與「資源傾注首都」的矛盾。並探討憲法的功能以及首都入憲的意義，而首都入憲的例子當中，形成了何種解決首都爭議的程序。再者，透過觀察台北與首爾各自的歷史脈絡，並提出台北與首爾的首都形塑過程中，首都象徵意義的差異點。而最終，在台灣與南韓各自透過憲法法院處理首都爭議的過程與結果中，首都象徵意義的差異點是否占了關鍵的因素。 本文主張以「首都憲政主義」描述透過憲政程序，解決「聯合統一群體」與「資源傾注首都」的矛盾，形成首都、國家與其他區域的權力與關係安排，並將結果形塑至憲政秩序中的過程。而透過台北與首爾各自歷史脈絡的觀察，提出台北作為首都的意義，是飄盪且充滿疑慮的首都；而首爾在漫長歷史中，始終表現獨立自主的首都象徵意義。而在最終台灣與南韓透過憲法法院處理首都爭議時，台灣方面並未正面確立台北的首都地位，而南韓正面建立了「首爾作為首都」的憲政慣例，並融入各自國家的憲政秩序中。表現出台北與首爾各自的歷史脈絡與首都象徵意義，影響了最終透過憲政程序處理首都爭議的過程與結果，表現出各自特色的「首都憲政主義」。
並列摘要
“Capital city relocation” is a policy which has operated in many countries and is also a popular topic which is discussed in Taiwan. In 2004, Constitutional Court of Korea rendered the verdict that the policy regarding Capital city relocation of Seoul is unconstitutional. This verdict mentioned that Capital city relocation is not only about geographical change but also a constitutional controversy. It’s necessary to investigate the concept about Capital City, the relationship between Capital City and other areas, the constitutional meaning of Capital City, and how to address debates regarding Capital City by constitution. Most importantly, it’s argued that how different context of countries would contribute to different statuses about Capital City on the constitution even there still have similar factors? This thesis is structured as follows. First, I would investigate the connection between “Capital City”, “united nation” and “the concentration of benefits in Capital City”. It causes a paradox that how to unite a nation even though Capital City is richer than other areas. Second, I would propose “Capital City Constitutionalism” as a framework which describes the constitutional status of Capital City and how to address the constitutional controversy about Capital City. Third, I focus on how the context of Taipei and Seoul shapes different meanings of Capital City. Finally, The Justices of the Constitutional Court in Taiwan and Constitutional Court of Korea have both made decisions regarding disputes of Capital City. I mention that if those decisions are related to the meaning of Taipei and Seoul. In the thesis, I define “Capital City Constitutionalism” as a process which solves the paradox between “united nation” and “the concentration of benefits in Capital City”. The process defines the relationship and power between Capital City, the nation and other areas. As a result, the consequence of process would become an important part in the constitutional order. In the description about meanings of Taipei and Seoul, on one hand, Taipei as a Capital City is doubtful and ambiguous. On the other hand, Seoul symbolizes the independence of Korea in its context. Therefore, Taipei is not recognized as a Capital City obviously in decisions by the constitutional court. On the contrary, Seoul as a Capital City is a constitutional convention. I conclude that the different context of Taipei and Seoul contributes to different status of Capital City and decisions which were made by constitutional courts.