論法院在多元民主社會的溝通機能

Communicative Functions of Court in a Democratic Plural Society

梁志鳴(Chih-Ming Liang)

指導教授 ： 張文貞

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2004年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2004.00028

摘要

多元社會挑戰了多數決式的民主，也連帶挑戰了法院。強調對話與溝通的審議式民主（deliberative democracy），則是回應這些挑戰的主要嘗試。其強調將溝通制度化，透過制度的設計，讓政治參與及公共決策能夠經由充分的對話溝通，因此，本文稱之為制度化溝通途徑。本文研究的問題，便在於探討多元社會下的制度化溝通途徑，尤其是探討法院在審議式民主中，是否有一定的角色與功能？
為了討論此一問題，本文從民主理論出發，去思考將溝通制度化於民主體制中的民主理論，是否可以消弭多數決所無法解決的價值衝突。在獲得肯定的答案之後，筆者進一步以制度化溝通途徑為觀點，針對法院這種制度及其產出－判決，作實證的分析，從中找出與溝通發生關連的具體制度管道。
本文首先發現，法院與溝通在實證上有五種可能關係，包括：一、迴避案件的受理，將爭議留給更適合溝通的機關；二、賦予與溝通有關的權利，健全溝通情境；三、引導公共決策能在對話暢通的程序中產出；四、將爭議轉介到更能夠溝通的部門。五、透過判決，與社會或政治部門進行互動與對話。
其次，從審議式民主來看，法院有三種理想溝通角色：法院可以駁回案件成為旁觀者、成為溝通情境的維護者、或是透過判決成為溝通的參與者。這三種角色各有制度條件，旁觀者以決策主體具備透過溝通解決爭議的能力為前提；維護者則應介入補強不理想的溝通情境；參與者角色則要求法院改變判決方式：1、避免在缺乏具體爭議的情況下判決。2、窄化影響範圍。3、深化理由的構成。
最後，本文認為，台灣法院應將程序駁回、徹底袖手旁觀列為最後選擇，並靈活運用賦權與引導轉介模式，來逐案維護溝通情境。法院也應縮小判決影響範圍，以誘發政治部門的回應，並且提供具有實質說服力的論理，甚至扮演不同時空下的「規範」與「（不）在場者」的代言人，讓判決本身成為對話平台。

關鍵字

公民共和主義 ； 哈伯瑪斯 ； 多元社會 ； 法院 ； 審議式民主 ； 制度 ； 溝通

並列摘要

Today, a plural society has been posing great challenges to majoritarian democracy, thus threatening the role of court. The theory of deliberative democracy, focused on dialogue and communication, has been developed as a major response to such challenge. It tries to institutionalize communicative mechanisms so that political participation and public decision-making could derive from sufficient dialogue. Can this theory apply to the court? What kind of judicial role will be assigned and whether court may play an important role in deliberative democracy are the main issues explored by this thesis.
To explore proper roles of the court in deliberative democracies, this thesis has examined theories of democracy and reflected upon the question of whether deliberative democracy could mitigate conflicts of values, which may not be properly resolved by majoritarian democracy. In addition, based on the theory of deliberative democracy, this thesis tries to find out possible relationships between court and communication by conducting empirical research on the performance of court as an institution and its adjudication.
This thesis summarized five models of relationship between court and communications. First is the avoiding model, in which court dismiss cases and allow controversies to be resolved by institutions more capable of communication. Second is the empowering model, where court is to ensure the ideal communicative situation by guaranteeing communicative rights. The third is the guiding model, in which court is to ensure that public decision-making comes from a fully communicative procedure. The next model is a mediating one, where court is to mediate controversies and channel them into institutions more capable of communication. The final mode is communicating one, where communications with society and political branches are done via court’s verdict.
Based on the theory of deliberative democracy, court may play ideally three kinds of communicative roles: first as an onlooker, who dismisses the case; second as a guardian of communicative situation, and finally as a communicative participant. All three roles have institutional presuppositions: court as onlooker presupposes the capacity of decision-maker to resolve problems through dialogue; court as guardian may intervene in and reinforce unhealthy communicative situations, and finally, court as a participant requires modifying the manners of adjudication: adjudicating without concrete controversies, narrowing the scope of a ruling and deepening reasoning.
This thesis concludes that in Taiwan court must exercise more prudence with procedural dismissal, and that the models of empowering, guiding and mediating in which court play different communicative functions ought to be applied flexibly so as to ensure the ideal communicative situation. At last, court should narrow the scope of its rulings in order to trigger more political response, provide more persuasive reasoning, and transform adjudication into the platform of dialogue by mitigating changing norms and acting as a representative of those present or absent in different time and space.

並列關鍵字

Habermas ； communication ； institution ； plural society ； court ； deliberative democracy ； civil republicanism

參考文獻

______，2002，〈從「轉型法院」到「常態法院」：論大法官釋字第二六一號與第四九九號的解釋風格與轉型脈絡〉，《台大法學論叢》，31卷2期，頁59-96。又收於：葉俊榮，2003，《民主轉型與憲法變遷》，台大法學叢書(137)，初版，台北：元照，頁209-252。

顏厥安，2001，〈溝通、制度與民主文化—由哈伯瑪斯的法理論初探社會立憲主義〉，《台大法學論叢》，30卷3期，頁1-47。

李建良，2000，〈論人民服公職之權利與公務員懲處制度－司法院大法官釋字第四九一號解釋及其相關問題之研究〉，《政大法學評論》，第64期，頁33-61。

吳志光，2003，〈法官是人民生命洪流的參與者〉，《律師雜誌》，第284期，頁48-52。

財團法人民間司法改革基金會，2003，《大法官，給個說法：人權關懷與釋憲聲請》，初版，台北：商周。