兩岸協議框架下之國會監督—兼論兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議

Legislative Oversight under the Framework for Cross-Strait Agreements：Case Study of the Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement

陳虹宇(Hong-Yu Chen)

指導教授 ： 陳明通

共同指導教授 ： 陳顯武(Sian-Wu Chen)

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201701010

摘要

本文分為五章：第一章緒論，分別說明研究緣起、問題意識、研究目的、研究方法、研究架構。第二章文獻探討，分別討論國會監督機制、兩岸協議之法源和性質，及國際刑事司法互助。第三章為歷次會談簽署協議之回顧，自金門會談、江陳會談，至林陳會談，將簽署並生效之二十六項兩岸協議之內容，對照其所採用之國會監督程序，視其是否符合釋字三二九號解釋之標準。第四章將重點聚焦在《兩岸司法互助協議》，分析其重點條文涉及之基本權，再透過《兩岸司法互助協議》與《臺美司法互助協定》、《臺菲司法互助協定》之橫向比較，分析其簽署、審議至生效過程及協議內容，以凸顯《兩岸司法互助協議》之問題核心。第五章結論，其ㄧ，為本論文之研究發現，依照第三章分析之結果而應受國會監督之十九項協議中，僅有二項協議完成國會監督程序，其餘皆未完成即生效實施。其二，探討以《兩岸訂定協議監督條例草案（民進黨版本）》之標準，套用在本文對於未審查即生效之十五項兩岸協議之分析是否適宜，作為本文結論之再對照。其三，就政策面給予建議，透過兩岸協議監督法制之建立，賦予立法權事前或事後之監督權力，在行政權之談判協商空間與國會之協議審查權之間取得平衡，保持政府與人民之對話，確保國會對於兩岸協議之監督空間，亦同時保障人民之基本權。

關鍵字

兩岸人民關係條例 ； 兩岸協議 ； 兩岸共同打擊犯罪司法互助協議 ； 國會審議 ； 國會監督

並列摘要

This paper is comprised of 5 chapters. Chapter One is the introduction to the research origin, problematic, research purpose, research method, and research framework. Chapter Two is the literature review and discusses the congressional oversight mechanism, legal basis and nature of cross-strait agreements, and international judicial assistance in criminal matters. Chapter Three is the review of agreements signed during previous talks such as “Kinmen Talks”, “Chiang-Chen Talks”, and “Lin-Chen Talks”. The chapter cross references 26 signed and effective cross-strait agreements with the adopted congressional oversight and determines if they are in compliance with the J.Y. Interpretation No. 329.
Chapter Four will focus on the “Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement” and analyzes the fundamental rights that its main provisions touched upon. The chapter will make a horizontal comparison of the “Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement”, “Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States and the American Institute in Taiwan”, and “Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between The Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in the Philippines And The Manila Economic and Cultural Office in Taiwan”, and analyzes its substantive content and the process of signing, deliberation, and until it went into effect to highlight the core issue of the “Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement”.Chapter Five is the conclusion. First, this paper’s research found that only 2 out of 19 agreements that are supposed to be under congressional oversight completed the oversight process. The rest of the agreements went into effect without doing so. Moreover, the paper explores the appropriateness of applying the standard of the draft bill of “Cross-Strait Agreement Supervisory Act（DPP）” to the analysis of 15 cross-strait agreements that are already in effect as another comparison to its conclusion. Second, on policy matters, the paper recommends giving the legislative authority the oversight power before and after the signing of agreements by establishing the legal institution for cross-strait agreements supervision, balancing between negotiation confidentiality and oversight power, and maintaining the dialogue between the government and its people in order to ensure congressional oversight of cross-strait agreements and protect people’s fundamental rights.

並列關鍵字

Act Government Relations Between People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area ； cross-strait agreement ； Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement ； congressional review ； congressional oversight

參考文獻

陳振義（2014）。《海峽兩岸檢察制度之比較研究：以人權保障為核心》。臺北：致知學術出版。

王志文（1996）。〈論國際與區際民事司法協助〉，《華岡法粹》(24)：243-258。

王泰銓（2012）。〈評兩岸投資保障和促進協議〉，《萬國法律》(186)：80-92。

吳景芳（1994）。〈國際刑事司法互助基本原則之探討〉，《台大法學論叢》23(2)：331-347。

洪德欽（2011）。〈預防原則歐盟化之研究〉，《東吳政治學報》29(2)：1-56。