動物保護入憲模式之探討—從「權利觀點」出發

The Model of Animal Protections In Constitution:From the Perspective of Rights

許惠菁(Huei-Jing Hsu)

指導教授 ： 張文貞

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.10465

摘要

自1970年代以後，有關「動物保護」的議題越來越受到各國間的關注，不但在哲學倫理上開始反思動物的道德地位，如動物並非機器、會感受到痛苦，應具有某程度的道德考量;而在立法管制上也產生許多以「動物保護」為名的規範;更有許多學者以過去人權運動的經驗為借鏡，認為只有透過權利的論述，賦予動物權利才能真正完善保護動物，而本文亦在這個脈絡下來談論「動物保護」的議題。
本文認為想要真正處理動物保護之議題，必須從整個社會心態與法制來著手，檢討過去人類對待動物的態度—即「物」或「財產」的法律地位，認為正是這種極度不對等的關係造成人類恣意剝削動物。因此有必要先突破人類根深蒂固已久的物種迷思，才能平等地對待動物與人類的利益。
在提出對「物種主義」的批判後，進而引入西方「動物權」運動的哲學理論，作為本文「權利觀點」的模型基礎，並主張「權利觀點」的論述應放在憲法層次的脈絡下，透過憲法最高性來拘束下位階法律，避免當「人權」與「動物權利」產生衝突時，造成「人權初步優先推定」的僵局。而本文主張「權利觀點」的入憲模式是多元的，不應僅受限於「基本人權」的型態，除了將動物利益與人類利益平等考量外，更不應忽視人類與動物之間的差異，因此提出三種不同入憲模式「權利模式」、「價值模式」以及「環境權模式」，並就此三種模式的適用範圍、保護強度以及訴訟制度設計做介紹。
本文將三種模式與實際案例做結合與檢討後發現此三種模式乃係同心圓式的保護圖像，三種模式並非相互排斥的，而是可以依據社會的道德進城以及社會共識做調整，讓動物利益可層層被納入保護體系內。如此一來，雖然動物保護議題處理上雖然困難，但仍可有理論基礎一貫的模型可供運用。

關鍵字

動物權 ； 動物保護 ； 效益主義 ； 多重判斷準則 ； 人類中心主義 ； 物種歧視 ； 權利觀點 ； 價值模式 ； 環境權模式 ； 動物

並列摘要

Since 1970, the issue of animal protection is highly noticed and concerned through national wide. In philosophy, we have certain consensus that animals are not machines and they should deserve certain moral rights. In legislation regulation, there are more and more regulations about animals. Moreover, scholars even try to argue that animals should have legal rights to protect themselves. Although I agree that argument, I think the aspect of rights should be refined in some way.
To deal the issue of animal protection, we should exam the attitude of the whole society and our legal system. I find out that we people treat animals as “objects” or “property”. It is the unequal relationship that makes we human exploit animals so greatly. So I claim, not until we human get rid of the myth of specisim can we fairly and equally treat the interests of animals and the interests of human.
Then I introduce theories of animal rights as the basis of the models which I propose. I think the argument of rights aspect should be put in the context of Constitution. Through the superiority of Constitution, it can avoid the situation “ prima facie of human rights” when there are some conflicts between the interests of animals and the interests of human beings. Also, I argue the aspects of rights should not be confined as the type of “human rights” we have discussed a lot in the past. It can be quite diverse. In order to equally concern the interests of animals and human beings and notice the difference between animals and human, I propose three models, such as the right model, the value model and the model of environmental right.
Finally, to put my models into practice, I have to take the real cases into consideration. I find out the three types of model are compatible. They outline as an image of concentric circle. According to the progress of our social society and social consensus, the decision makers can be flexible to choose which one is the best to protect animals as wide as possible. As a result, although how animal protection in question is still a difficult issue, there is a workable model with consistent understanding of “animal rights” to be applied.

並列關鍵字

Animal Rights ； Animal Welfare ； Utilitarianism ； a multi-criterial concept ； specisim ； the right model ； the value model ； the model of environmental right

參考文獻

1. 丁昱仁(2006)，獵捕保育類野生動物之可刑罰性研究，國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文

14. 鄧煜祥(2007)，從財產權保障之觀點論土地使用管制與損失補償—美國法管制準徵收概念之引介，台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文

5. 梁志鳴(2003)，論法院在多元民主社會的溝通機能，台灣大學國家發展所碩士論文

5. 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〉，台大法學論叢第三十二卷第六期，頁61-102

7. 陳德和(2000)，〈從道家思想談動物權的觀念〉，應用倫理研究通訊第十三期，頁22-25