透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.199.241.53
  • 學位論文

台灣有形歷史保存法制發展史(1895-2015):從國家目標與權利保障之互動談起

The Legal History of Tangible Heritage Preservation in Taiwan (1895-2015):From the Interaction Between National Goals and Rights of People

指導教授 : 王泰升

摘要


本文爬梳1895年到2015年有形歷史保存制度與實踐在台灣的發展情況,並將視角集中於現代法律中重要、且具衝突關係的兩個面向:國家目標之實現與人民權利之保障。 在日治時期,1920年公布生效於日本、1930年施行於台灣的「史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法」象徵著日本有意將台灣定位為科學研究之底盤,與1897年公布但從未生效於台灣之「古社寺保存法」或原意在於以愛鄉推動愛國、國民教化之「史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法」大不相同。不過,「史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法」在實踐上強調皇國紀念與統治正當性,反而是回應了內地制定法律時的國族想像。相較於立法精神與實踐,本制度未在權利保護的面向上有所著墨。在此,原住民族群則自始未被納入現代法體系,完全欠缺參與保存制度之經驗。 1945年中華民國政權將1930年開始施行於中國之「古物保存法」納進台灣法體系。然而,在生效之始,目標在於保存中華文化精粹、掌握中央政府文物控制權之該法因版圖過大、戰爭頻繁等原因未能有良好實踐。而台灣接收政策中刻意強調的「去除日本、回歸中國」與接收官員瀰漫的貶台情緒,使得只有史蹟、沒有古物的台灣未成為統治者有意保存的對象,即使有台灣人主張保存亦復如是。1949年之後亦延續此番氣氛,在「國家=中國=故宮寶物」與「地方=台灣=在地古蹟古物」的意象上做出區分,並對後者採取忽略心態。對於後者所涉及之權利爭議,亦在戒嚴時期的威權法體制下未被統治者加以關心。 1970年代,隨著國內外情勢之轉變而生的統治正當性危機,統治者開始採取本土化的政策,以因應逐漸升高的台灣本土呼聲,而林安泰古厝保存事件,更成為推動「文化資產保存法」通過的推手之一。是以1982年之後,象徵著中國框架下保存台灣文化之法律誕生了,而在高度重視具有中華歷史意義的古物之餘,也吸收了外國立法例作為古蹟立法之模型,因此成為較具權利保障思維之部分,儘管整體而言,仍不能謂關照了人民的權利實現,引發了諸多適用爭議,並牽動日後的修法實踐。 1990年代民主化時代下,伴隨著方政府有意以此制度對抗表彰中國國族主義、中央集權之國民黨政府,多元族群、異質歷史記憶之面向開始受到關注。另外,凍結式保存之立法策略過度限制人民使用、開發私產之權利,引發了不滿與修法改革。行政程序法與相關行政法制度之完善化過程,也逐漸將權利保障、程序保護等思維帶入文化資產保存法體系,甚至是由人民主動提起的司法案件之中。 2000年民進黨執政後一改官方的國族意識形態,轉而以重視多元文化之台灣國族主義作為基本要素,並以此為本,開始在相關修法中援用國際公約等精神,試圖從連結國際來落實台灣主體性。但另一方面,在有意以「文化」作為發展方向,並開始大力推廣相關產業措施的同時,許多保存對象也面臨了日益龐大的威脅,並引發諸多爭議。對此,司法者雖在「財產權」、「開發價值」與「保存價值」中定紛止爭,但似乎只強調以法學概念保障財產權,保存價值則被視為公益加以理解。在此結構中受到不良影響的還包含財產觀、世界觀均與漢人不同的原住民族群,其等在追尋、回溯族群歷史時,因為現代法學結構受到諸多阻礙。面對上開問題,學者們開始從「文化權」實質化、正當化保存之價值,亦試圖在國際人權法的脈絡下建構原住民族文化權之憲法地位。 回顧歷史事實,本文認為有必要重新從憲法、國際人權法思考保存價值之意義,揚棄過去過度重視國族主義發展之政治目標,強調個人權利之保護。同時也應注意長期以來主導社會之開發價值對於保存價值之折損,強化保存制度中有效抵禦開發價值之不良影響,如刪除都市開發脈絡下容積移轉可取代文化資產脈絡下容積移轉之規定,並增設公益訴訟的具體規範。另外,面對台灣社會中異質歷史經驗的競逐,應在制度上增加彼此充分溝通、相互理解的可能性,具有公信力的文化價值評估、人民參與機制之充實,均是可行方向。最後,保存法制邊緣化的原住民族群,也應基於原住民族基本法意旨,落實原住民族文化資產保存,或可參考美國制度,以重視原住民族對於文物之擁有權、使用權與管理權作為修正方向。

並列摘要


This essay elaborates the interaction between national goals and rights of people under the development of tangible heritage preservation from 1895 to 2015 in Taiwan. Since these two characters have a relationship of co-existence and contradiction, it is necessary to look back the practice of preservation, especially its process of nation-building, in the context of colonial, authoritarian and democratic Taiwan. Under Japanese ruling starting from 1895, tangible heritage preservation in colonial Taiwan is not the same as in Japan. First, the Colonial Government (Sōtoku-Fu) doesn’t extend the Temple Preservation Law of 1897 to Taiwan, which aims to protect the historical, religion and aesthetic essence of Japan. Second, even though after 1920s, the Colonial Government strengthens its assimilation policy toward colonial territories, and in 1919, the Historical Site, Scenic Beauty and Natural Monument Preservation Law is effective in Japan, not until 1930 does it come into force in Taiwan. Further, the object of the law, which is to civilize Japanese people, is not the same as the goal of assimilation. Only for the scientific and research reason makes the government willing to extent it into the colonial. Although in practice, the system is taken as a mean to commemorate the Japanese Emperor and shows the legitimacy of his ruling as well. All of these point out an”exclusion” in the work of “assimilation.” After 1945, the KMT government brings the Antiquities Preservation Act of 1930 into Taiwan. Because of its particular emphasis on antique rather than historical sites, accompanying with the government’s depreciation of Japanese character, the government doesn’t treasure the historical heritage of Taiwan, only regarding it as a local culture without necessity to preserve. This attitude leads to some right-related controversies and continue to 1960s, as National Palace Museum becomes the most attended manifestation of the long, gorgeous and splendid Chinese culture. Nevertheless, around the age of 1970s, Due to the change of political atmosphere, the governor adjusts his cultural policy and preservation strategy, including and absorbing the local power into political field. In addition, the incident of Preservation of the Lin-An Tai Residence accelerates the pace of legislative action. Therefore, in the year of 1982, the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law officially becomes effective in Taiwan. 1982-1990s can be seen as a multiple, dynamic period of tangible heritage preservation. During the democratic time, people start to know how to fight for their interests and rights. Also, because the law doesn’t pay enough attention to the protection of property, lots of controversies arise, which eventually lead to several amendments of the law. Further, the local governments intent to struggle against the KMT-led central government through the law, showing multiple, extensive interactions among different groups and historical memories. In addition, the legal research groups introduce the meaning of due process of law and other concepts of right protection, which gradually influence the thinking of Taiwanese people and their practice in courts. After the rotation of political parties in 2000, the development of tangible heritage preservation turn into a new page. Based on the general understanding of Taiwanese-Nationalism, the government establishes the identity and subjectivity through following international documents of preservation, respecting the culture of different ethnically groups, and tracing the history of the authoritarian ruling. At the same time, the government engages in”culture industry” as a new field of national development with claims to pursue property rights. Nevertheless, under the understanding of economic value, lots of object loss their fundamental meaning of preservation. Among the contests of property rights, values of preservation and development, the courts try to define and designate different roles and functions of these factors. However, without the substantial realization of the value of preservation, the law cannot do beyond the personal rights of property, not to mention the indigenous groups who are far from being possible to be smoothly incorporated into the traditional legal system. Based on these historical findings, this essay argues a more substantial, people-oriented way to realize preservation under the values of international documents and constitutional protections. First, rights should be given more protection. At the same time, negative effects caused by the majority’s value of urban development should be mitigated by strengthening the institution of preservation, such as deleting TDR reward of urban development in the preservation context, and adding Public interest litigation. Further, faced with the social fact of multiple historical experiences, the government should increase the chance of mutual understanding and communication by implementing the mutual-accepted cultural value assessment and intensifying the character of people in the hearing and deliberation process. Last but not Least, long-neglected Indigenous culture should be given more emphasis by respecting the spirit of The Indigenous Peoples Basic Law in the field of tangible heritage preservation. American system can be a reference to intensify their control of heritage.

參考文獻


______(2010),《臺灣日治時期的法律改革》,台北:元照,5版。
若林正丈(2014),洪郁如、陳培豐等譯,《戰後臺灣政治史:中華民國台灣化的歷程》,台北:國立台灣大學出版中心。
王甫昌(2001),〈民族想像、族群意識與歷史─《認識台灣》教科書爭議風波的內容與脈絡分析〉,《台灣史研究》,8卷2期,頁145-208。
黃守達(2015),《戰後台灣地方自治的轉型:法律史視角的考察》,台灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文。
蔡惠方(2014),《遺址保存之法制架構與實踐》,台灣大學科際整合法律學碩士論文。

延伸閱讀