法院在分裂社會中之民主維持功能--司法治理現象的制度性分析

Judicial Role in Divided Society: An Institutional Approach to Juristocracy

朱德明(Deh-Ming Zhu)

指導教授 ： 葉俊榮

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2005年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2005.01069

摘要

隨著時代邁入二十一世紀，第三波民主化運動已經逐漸從民主化階段進入到民主鞏固階段，伴隨著全球化以及跨國憲政主義的影響，司法審查制度成為當代鞏固民主價值的主要特徵。但是有越來越多的案例顯示，在某些政治脈絡之下，社會有朝向分裂的傾向。而傳統上應該由選舉所決定的重大政治議題，往往由於雙元對立的分裂結構，僵持不下而開始轉往尋求司法的仲裁。這個現象在一九九零年代後半開始產生，而有越來越多的趨勢。從加拿大魁北克獨立公投到美國兩千年總統大選，從台灣三一九槍擊案到烏克蘭大選作票疑雲，分裂社會的政治烽火正蔓延到各國的最高法院或憲法法院中。這樣的現象，對於憲政主義產生了什麼樣的暗示？而司法權又如何介入這樣具有高度爭議性以及民主政治的核心問題並且全身而退？或更進一步詢問：法院如何扮演促進民主的角色？

本文欲從制度面的分析角度切入，來分析並回答這樣的問題。並嘗試從不同型態的分裂社會去理解分裂問題的本質差異。並且透過政治哲學上的民主理論和實證比較研究的民主模型，連結民主、憲政主義與分裂社會，分別建構司法權對於不同分裂社會的不同反應模式。

本文發現，在基本型的分裂社會中，由於分裂議題環繞在身份認同本身，並且帶有價值取向的論述，使得司法在此型態的分裂社會中無法也不應採取積極的立場。相對的，在政策導向型分裂社會中，由於分裂議題屬於身份中立性，且採取權利取向的論述方式，使得法院較適合成為當代審議式民主所主張的溝通對話制度。

本文主張，由於台灣屬於分裂社會的議題混合型態，在同一議題上有不同分裂特徵的論述。因此，言論領袖應採取偏向政策導向型的論述模式，使得分裂社會具體發生爭議時，法院得以適時的介入扮演分裂彌合的角色，從而實踐憲政主義的時代典範。

關鍵字

分裂社會 ； 民主 ； 憲政主義 ； 全球化 ； 司法治理 ； 形式法治主義 ； 司法積極主義

並列摘要

This world has been observing a prevailing phenomenon of judicial empowerment while entering the 21st century. With the impact of globalization and transnational constitutionalism, the third wave democratization uses judicial review as the vital institution to guarantee the consolidation of democracy. But it also shows a tendency that more and more cases are filed into the courts, of which are traditionally in the domain of democratic decisions, but cannot be resolved because of a bi-polar stand-off in the political arena. From Quebecois independence referendum to U.S. Presidential election in 2000, or from the gun-shot case in Taiwanese Presidential election campaign to the fraud case in Ukrainian Presidential election, we saw the judiciary is caught as the battlefield of adversarial political powers. That what are the implications in constitutionalism, and how should the judiciary intervene into these highly contentious cases and, to put it further, how do courts promote democracy, are the main questions we want to analyze in this thesis.

This thesis would use institutional approach to investigate the role that judiciary plays, and tries to build a model of spectrum between the “fundamentally divided societies” and “policy-oriented societies” By consulting the theories of political philosophy and empirical studies of democracy in plural societies, this thesis wants to make a theoretical connection among democracy, constitutionalism and divided society itself, which is the foundation of analytical framework in this thesis.

This thesis finds that in “fundamentally divided societies”, the fault line issues are identity-centered, with value-based arguments which disable the judiciary from intervening actively. By contrast, the issues concerned in “policy-oriented divided societies” are identity-neutral with arguments based on rights. These characteristics make the courts the suitable institutional mechanism of dialogic politics, which is championed by deliberative democracy theorists.

This thesis argues that, in the concrete case of Taiwan, because the divided societal characteristics show a hybrid type of mixture tendency, with different divided arguments being found in the same issue, the political figures that shape the public opinions should adopt a discourse model of policy-oriented, so that when an issue develops to be societal divided and cannot be resolved through democratic elections, the judiciary may act as mediator to heal the division in time, and to fulfill the new constitutionalism paradigm shown in the ear of globalization.

並列關鍵字

Constitutionalism ； Democracy ； Divided Society ； Globalization ； Juristocracy ； Formal Legalism ； Judicial Activism

參考文獻

江宜樺，1998，自由主義、民族主義與國家認同，揚智文化事業股份有限公司，台北

梁志鳴，2004論法院在多元民主社會的溝通機能，國立台灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文

吳建輝，2004，從歐洲法院與會員國法院的互動看法院在區域統合的角色，國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文

周明泉，2004，「未來的民主」或「議定的民主」？詮析德西達與哈伯瑪斯圖構「歐洲後民族格局」之途徑，哲學與文化

張文貞，2003，中斷的憲法對話：憲法解釋在憲法變遷脈絡的定位，國立台灣大學法學論叢，第三十二卷第六期，頁61-102