原住民族刑事司法制度建構芻議－－邁向平等共治模式

A Study On Constructing the Criminal Justice System of Indigenous People--Toward the Mode of Co-governance among Equals

胡家瑋(Chia-Wei Hu)

指導教授 ： 謝煜偉

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201801000

摘要

我國原住民族與漢人之間的法律衝突屢見不鮮，從憲法增修條文「原住民族條款」與原住民族基本法等增修以來縱已有若干減緩，然而始終無法根本地排除主流族群對於原住民族的侵害。司法院於2013年起嘗試藉由設置原住民族專業法庭（股）以解決此現象，然而此專庭（股）之設置並未以實體或程序法規的修正作為配套，則單純一個國家司法權底下分工系統的改變，是否真的能促進原住民族司法權益發展？其中尤以涉及刑事責任之持有槍砲、獵捕野生動物與採集森林產物之行為，與原住民族文化關切最深而受到最多關注。
　　本文分析原民專庭（股）之組織架構以及涉及槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例、野生動物保育法以及森林法之刑事判決後發現，該專庭（股）所促成的較偏向是個案式的正義，整體而言未能稱上帶來大幅度進展。於是本文試圖從比較法的視野，探討下一步的改革方向。首先就原住民族特殊制度建置（特別是法律與司法面向）之理論基礎，本文分從多元文化主義與法律多元主義切入，並以「墾殖者國家」當中的美國、加拿大和澳洲為例，說明各國的原住民族刑事司法制度內涵、對於多元文化主義之詮釋以及對法律多元主義之實踐。檢討後發現，多元文化主義下的原住民族依然處於被統治地位，法律多元主義便因此無法獲得落實，生活於此種狀況下的原住民族都面臨領域／保留區內犯罪率高與被害率高的嚴重刑事司法困境。各國對此之處理方式不是將統治權力返回給各部族，而是以價值觀迥異的國家司法力量強化對他們的統治，並因此導致更多問題發生。近十幾年來雖有試圖融合國家司法體系與原住民族規範之嘗試（例如設置原住民族量刑法院），然而由於此等政策與措施並非立基於對等協商後的結果，是故不僅無法解決問題，反而對於原住民族文化帶來更大的破壞。
　　相反而言，二十世紀末期起陸續簽署國際勞工組織「原住民與部落人民公約」的拉丁美洲國家，則由原住民族領導，在各國憲法掀起一波變革，此股翻轉原住民族地位之浪潮被稱為「多元民族主義」。其中，玻利維亞與厄瓜多在修憲後承認自己為「多元民族國家」，並實質肯認原住民族規範與司法機制之效力，展現出與上開國家不同的風貌。參照此二國家實踐經驗，再藉由「國家與原住民族法律間關係」的四階段模式──不承認、過渡、順應與承認，本文依序提出我國在各個階段可行的修正建議，而最終目標是達到建立一個原住民族司法體系與國家司法體系二元並進的體系，亦即玻利維亞模式之「平等司法共治」。

關鍵字

原住民族專業法庭 ； 原住民族刑事司法制度 ； 多元文化主義 ； 法律多元主義 ； 多元民族主義 ； 刑事司法管轄權 ； 平等司法共治

並列摘要

Conflicts between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples (mostly the Hans) in Taiwan have long been an issue. Efforts have been made to address them from a legal perspective including amending the Constitution and the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, but fall short of ceasing further tensions. To solve the problem, the Judicial Yuan established indigenous peoples’ tribunals at all district and high courts in 2013 and 2014. However, it is debatable that without amending corresponding laws, the mere structural change can fundamentally improve judicial rights of the aboriginals.
This article therefore discusses future reform paths through the lens of comparative law. By studying distinctive institutions of indigenous peoples in three "settler states", the United States, Canada, and Australia, it first exemplifies how theories of multiculturalism and legal pluralism have been applied to a country's aboriginal criminal judicial system. It then reaches the conclusion that indigenous peoples in all the countries under examination are still in a subjugated position, where we have seen high crime and victimization rates in indigenous reserves. Rather than giving the aboriginals self-governing powers, each state had chosen to tighten its control with a judicial system based on disparate values. In recent decades, attempts have been made to combine national judicial systems with indigenous norms. Nevertheless, the aboriginals were always underrepresented and unfairly treated during the negotiation. The outcome policies have proven more detrimental to indigenous cultures.
By contrast, since the 1990s, Latin American countries have signed The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989) of the International Labor Organization. Aboriginal tribes in those countries spearheaded movements to amend their constitutions. Plurinationalism emerged as a new concept, under which a state was perceived as a composite of multiple nations. Among those Latin American countries, Bolivia and Ecuador stood out in that after constitutional amendments, they recognized themselves as plurinational states and approved the efficacy of indigenous norms and judicial systems.
Taking the experiences of Bolivia and Ecuador into consideration, and using "the four-stage model of indigenous law recognition" that includes non-recognition, transition, accommodation and full-recognition, this article concludes by proposing suggestions for criminal judicial reform at each stage in Taiwan. The ultimate goal is to achieve the Bolivian “judicial co-governance among equals”, in which the judicial system of indigenous peoples parallel that of the nation.

並列關鍵字

Indigenous Peoples’ Court or Tribunal ； Indigenous Criminal Justice System ； Multiculturalism ； Legal Pluralism ； Plurinationalism ； Criminal Jurisdiction ； Judicial Co-governance among Equals

參考文獻

葉高華（2013）。〈排除？還是放棄？平埔族與山胞身分認定〉，《臺灣史研究》，20卷3期，頁177-206。

王泰升（2013）。〈在法學與國家法中看見原住民族法律〉，《政大法學評論》，134期，頁1-46。

王泰升（2015）。〈論台灣社會上習慣的國家法化〉，《臺大法學論叢》，44卷1期，頁1-69。

中文文獻

王皇玉（2009）。《刑罰與社會規訓》。台北：元照。