葉俊榮Yeh, Jiunn-rong臺灣大學:法律學研究所黃若羚Huang, Jo-LinJo-LinHuang2010-05-052018-07-052010-05-052018-07-052007U0001-1512200711454200http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/179359本文由我國經驗出發，從轉型正義所可能涉及的繁複歷史脈絡、民主轉型成因，以及制度選取等複雜議題中，擷取出「真相調查」以及「法院」兩個命題，以「轉型正義與真相調查之關聯」、「真相調查與法院之關聯」兩項為主軸進行研究討論，檢討我國對於轉型正義問題處理之實踐時所發生的問題，並提出可能的改善之道。察我國的轉型脈絡及司法機關轉型正義問題的處理，本文發現我國民主轉型採取漸進的方式達成，威權與民主統治間的界線並不清晰，我國司法機關在無從否認戒嚴時期威權統治正當性的情形下，對於轉型正義的問題，大多採取迴避或排斥的態度；甚至利用大法官解釋的方式，將尋求法律救濟之受迫害人民排除於法院體系之外；我國司法機關並未對轉型正義問題展開其他國家實踐中常見的刑事訴追或真相調查；更有甚者，法院的迴避立場也使得我國轉型正義問題的處理相當程度逸脫於司法體系之外。司法的消極態度隨之引發我國以「補償功能」為中心的問題處理模式，法院的角色仍僅是作為被害者金錢補償發放的審定者，未能以執法者的角度審慎思考在轉型正義問題中法律所能發揮的功能。文提出以「真相調查」作為民主化國家轉型正義措施之核心，認為：在許多轉型問題的處理模式中，最基本、也是最為重要的部分，乃是在於真相調查的進行。基於民主鞏固、國家認同以及社會和解等因素，對於轉型正義案件的真相調查對於民主轉型國家具有重要的意義，部分民主轉型國家所採行的「遺忘政策」是不可採的。此外，真相調查過程中應使被害者能夠在真相調查過程中訴說其生命經驗、重新為社會公共領域所接納，國家機關並應在公開的場欲給予被害者道德上及規範上的支持。這樣的立論下，本文認為，相異於私領域中的學術研究部門或新聞媒體，抑或是公領域中的政治部門，司法機關同時具有機關「權威性」、「公眾性」以及「中立性」等特質；此等司法權之性質，對於前述轉型正義目標任務的達成，與其他機關團體相比之下，有較高的制度優勢、能夠更有效確實地達成轉換公眾認知、揭發歷史真相的目的；此外，法院在轉型正義議題上的參與，更對於新興民主國家的法制建立與政治轉型具有極為重要的意義。而，基於轉型正義問題的特殊性，法院在處理上可能遇到許多事實上的困難以及法律原則上限制；雖然為了實質正義之達成，許多國家的法院採取與一般時期不同的策略、程序規範以及法律解釋方法來處理轉型正義議題，但其仍非一般審判之常態；此外，雖然對於調查真相、形成真相的公眾認知能夠發揮一定的作用，本文亦發現法院作為一個探究個人法律上責任的機制，無法完全承載轉型社會與轉型正義措施中複雜的制度目標與社會意義。因此，本文認為：法院之外的補充性機制乃是必須的--該機制應補充法院之不足，建立較全面性、社會性，並以被害者為中心之歷史事實調查。Transitional justice refers to a field of activity and inquiry focused on how societies address legacies of past human rights abuses, mass atrocity, or other forms of severe social trauma. As an important value that many new democracies pursue, transitional justice has proven its importance as a pivotal role in many countries’ developing experience with democratization process.oncerning many controversial and perplexing topics embedded in the transitional justice discourse, the practice of courts-- the judiciary proceeding and ruling-- has always been at the center of debate. This thesis, by illustrating the current judicial practice regarding transitional justice in democratizing Taiwan, adopted and institutional approach to investigate the role that judiciary can play. This thesis finds that while democratic transition in Taiwan has been achieved in an incremental manner, lacking a clear repudiation from the old authoritarian regime, the judiciary in Taiwan, when handling the issue of transitional justice, also responds with hesitation, evasion or even intrusion. With this passive attitude, the court has become nothing more than an institution to award compensations. The traditional functions and obligations of court, such as truth-finding, prosecuting the perpetrator, or achieving public awareness of the crime, were not amplified or respected.This thesis argues that the fundamental and crucial objective the new democracy should achieve regarding traditional justice is truth-finding. Only by clarifying the factual truth of the dreadful past and hideous crimes can the new regime move forward to self-recognition, reconciliation, and democratic consolidation. Comparing to other private or political institutions, this thesis argues that the judiciary proceeding was equipped with the distinguishing features of being “official”, “impartial” and “open to the public”, which are essential to accomplish some critical values pursued by transitional society. Those unique characters enable the court to take a more positive and initiative role in the truth-finding task in pursuit of transitional justice. However, as an institution designed for criminal prosecution or damage allocation of individuals, the court has its limits when facing the complex of transitional justice issues. A complementary institutional design, aiming at comprehensive historical reconstruction and restoration of victim’s dignity, is also necessary.1. 緒論 1.1研究緣起與問題意識 1.2. 研究範圍與方法 9.3. 本文架構與論點 12. 我國轉型正義議題之處理模式 15.1戒嚴時期不當審判處理機制之演進 17.2不當審判案件處理模式特徵分析 41.3制度現象之成因與影響 46. 以「真相調查」為中心之轉型正義 61.1. 歷史真相與轉型正義 63.2. 「真相權」之建構 87.3. 他國案例之借鏡 95. 法院作為促進歷史真相呈現之機制 107.1. 法院於轉型正義中的角色定位 107.2. 法院作為真相權之制度性保障 117.3. 法院處理轉型正義議題之限制 131. 結論 153考文獻 159application/pdf951155 bytesapplication/pdfen-US轉型正義法院司法權民主化威權真相調查真相權戒嚴冤獄賠償法安定性真相與和解委員會transition justicecourtjudicial reviewdemocratizationauthoritarianismtruth-findingright to truthmartial lawwrongful imprisonment compensationlegal certaintytruth and reconciliation commission[SDGs]SDG16thesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/179359/1/ntu-96-R92a21018-1.pdf