Repository logo
  • English
  • 中文
Log In
Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. College of Law / 法律學院
  3. Law / 法律學系
  4. Rawlsian viewpoint on J. Y. Interpretation No. 580
 
  • Details

Rawlsian viewpoint on J. Y. Interpretation No. 580

Date Issued
2007
Date
2007
Author(s)
Feng, Tsang-Pao
DOI
zh-TW
URI
http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/52570
Abstract
According to Article 15 of the Constitution, property right of a citizen is expressly guaranteed. Why property right should be protected under the Constitution is for the sake that owning property helps to maintain human dignity, to contribute to freedom development of individual personality, and to serve other functions socially. On one hand, how and to what degree property right should be protected is still unclear. Even if property right is a constitutional right, on the other hand, it doesn’t mean there’s no boundary. What often haunts us is that where the boundary lies. The question we encounter mentioned above is how to make clear the content and the constraint of property right. The answer to it, however, can not be found in our constitutional law. In this paper, I would attempt to make the question explicit by adopting Rawlsian viewpoint developed in A Theory of Justice. Subsequently, comparison would be made between the theory of property right put forth by Honorable Justices in J. Y. Interpretation No. 580 and the Rawlsian opinion on property right in A Theory of Justice J. Y. Interpretation No. 580 is mainly about whether The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act would be in violation of the Constitution. Based on what is said in J. Y. Interpretation No. 580., only Article 19, Section 3 of The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act is unconstitutional and other articles are constitutional. From the viewpoint of “resource---utility” or “primary goods---utility” developed by Rawls, in contrast, The 37.5% Rent Reduction Act would be termed as inefficient and unfair and would need rectification or abolishment. It is not hard to find that a big difference exits between what Honorable Justices and Rawls say. According to my opinion, Honorable Justices’ neglect of aging time and too lax scrutiny of laws concerning the distribution of resources lead to this great difference.
Subjects
釋字第五八0號解釋
耕地三七五減租條例
財產權
羅爾斯
差異原則
資源
效益與效率
J. Y. Interpretation No. 580
the 37.5% Rent Reduction Act
property right
John Rawls
the difference principle
resource
utility
and efficiency
Type
thesis
File(s)
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name

ntu-96-R93a21022-1.pdf

Size

23.31 KB

Format

Adobe PDF

Checksum

(MD5):bb2148ca56f41e67cafeff9e2d656f2c

臺大位居世界頂尖大學之列,為永久珍藏及向國際展現本校豐碩的研究成果及學術能量,圖書館整合機構典藏(NTUR)與學術庫(AH)不同功能平台,成為臺大學術典藏NTU scholars。期能整合研究能量、促進交流合作、保存學術產出、推廣研究成果。

To permanently archive and promote researcher profiles and scholarly works, Library integrates the services of “NTU Repository” with “Academic Hub” to form NTU Scholars.

總館學科館員 (Main Library)
醫學圖書館學科館員 (Medical Library)
社會科學院辜振甫紀念圖書館學科館員 (Social Sciences Library)

開放取用是從使用者角度提升資訊取用性的社會運動,應用在學術研究上是透過將研究著作公開供使用者自由取閱,以促進學術傳播及因應期刊訂購費用逐年攀升。同時可加速研究發展、提升研究影響力,NTU Scholars即為本校的開放取用典藏(OA Archive)平台。(點選深入了解OA)

  • 請確認所上傳的全文是原創的內容,若該文件包含部分內容的版權非匯入者所有,或由第三方贊助與合作完成,請確認該版權所有者及第三方同意提供此授權。
    Please represent that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights to upload.
  • 若欲上傳已出版的全文電子檔,可使用Open policy finder網站查詢,以確認出版單位之版權政策。
    Please use Open policy finder to find a summary of permissions that are normally given as part of each publisher's copyright transfer agreement.
  • 網站簡介 (Quickstart Guide)
  • 使用手冊 (Instruction Manual)
  • 線上預約服務 (Booking Service)
  • 方案一:臺灣大學計算機中心帳號登入
    (With C&INC Email Account)
  • 方案二:ORCID帳號登入 (With ORCID)
  • 方案一:定期更新ORCID者,以ID匯入 (Search for identifier (ORCID))
  • 方案二:自行建檔 (Default mode Submission)
  • 方案三:學科館員協助匯入 (Email worklist to subject librarians)

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science