金門的轉型正義研究：以軍方占用民地為例

自從臺灣二次政黨輪替後，臺灣民主更為鞏固。同為臺灣實施民主政體一島的金門，相較走得慢，一直到1992年才解除戰地政務；當《促進轉型正義條例》通過後，真正落實在地方上的少之又少特別是財產權土地正義。如何透過修法落實土地正義即為本文目的。本文將採田野調查、深度訪談與個案研究，藉以釐清二個問題：一、尚有多少被軍方占用土地？與二、相應作法？範圍限制在金門五鄉鎮，不含烏坵鄉；對象為鄉鎮中之戰備道、雷區與營區等個案。研究發現：首先，在金門面積149.8510平方公里中，計4,071（筆）軍方占用地，計830.89公頃。依序分別是金湖鎮1,750（筆）、金沙鎮738（筆）、金城鎮508（筆）、金寧鄉495（筆）與烈嶼鄉368（筆）；最後，將五鄉鎮之個案與訪談紀錄整理，以及近年二次協調會，歸納出以下問題與作法：（一）如何解決落日條款問題？修正或刪除《離島建設條例》第9條第1項與第9-3條第1項之「五年內」條款；（二）如何修正《離島建設條例》9-3條第1項、第2項與第3項？下修年齡放寬土地所有人耕作認定標準；（三）如何修正《離島建設條例》9-3條第3項「……『應』設籍於申請返還土地所在……」？修改為「得」設籍於申請返還土地所在；（四）如何修正《離島建設條例》9-3條7項？執行上特別法優於普通法；（五）遭駁回之46件雷區土地如何救濟？協請縣籍立委處理。

關鍵字

金門行政區；轉型正義；財產權

並列摘要

Democracy has become more consolidated in Taiwan since it underwent the second transfer of political power. Kinmen, as a part of the Taiwanese democracy, has been progressing at a relatively slow pace. It was not until 1992 that the battleground administration of Kinmen was terminated. Additionally, after the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice was passed, very few transitional justice mechanisms have been actually implemented locally, particularly in respect of property rights and land justice. In view of this issue, the present study aims to investigate how to achieve land justice through legislation revisions. In this study, field research, in-depth interview, and case study approaches were adopted to address two questions: a) How much land is still being used by the military? b) What corresponding solutions can be adopted? The scope of research was limited to five townships in Kinmen (excluding Wuqiu Township), and the research subjects were specific sites in these townships, including roads of armaments, landmine areas, and military camps. The findings of this study are as follows: first, in Kinmen, which has a total area of 29.8540 km2, 4,071 pieces of land are being used by the military, totaling 830.89 hectares. The townships in descending order of quantity of military-used land are Jinhu Township (1,750), Jinsha Township (738), Jincheng Township (508), Jinning Township (495), and lastly Lieyu Township (368). Finally, based on a summary of the specific sites in the five townships and the records of interviews conducted therein, as well as the two coordination councils held in recent years, the following problems and solutions were concluded: (a) How should the problem of sunset clauses be resolved? The term "within five years" stipulated in Paragraph 1, Article 9 and Paragraph 1, Article 9-3 of the Offshore Islands Development Act may be revised or removed. (b) How should Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, Article 9-3 of the Offshore Islands Development Act be revised? The eligibility age can be lowered and the criteria for the recognition of land ownership and cultivation relaxed. (c) How should the statement "…'should' register as permanent residents at address(es) located in the land to be returned…" in Paragraph 3, Article 9-3 of the Offshore Islands Development Act be revised? The statement can be revised as "… 'may' register as permanent residents at address(es) located in the land to be returned…" (d) How should Paragraph 7, Article 9-3 of the Offshore Islands Development Act be revised? The special law should take precedence over the common law in regulatory implementation. (e) How can relief be provided for the 46 rejected cases of land located in landmine areas? Assistance can be sought from county legislators.