張文貞臺灣大學：國家發展研究所李怡俐Lee, Yi-LiYi-LiLee2007-11-272018-06-282007-11-272018-06-282006http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/56968本文旨在探討憲法修改的公民審議機制。公民在憲法修改程序之中，尤其是在公民複決修憲的情況裡，應該要有機會可以針對重大的憲法修改議題進行思辯與審議。此一理性溝通的機制不僅能改善憲改程序的討論品質，更可以強化修憲結果的正當性。而為了支持此一主張，本文將從以下幾個層面探討憲法修改與公民審議間的關係。 首先，本文在第二章的理論探討中，以公民共和理論、憲法時刻理論及審議民主理論作為代表理論，並以Hannah Arendt、Bruce Ackerman、以及Jürgen Habermas分別作為這些理論的代表學者。而從上述這些學者的理論中，推衍出憲法修改需要公民審議的依據和公民審議的原則。 在第三章中，本文進一步介紹並分析各國在制憲程序中、或針對各類憲法議題，曾採行過的公民討論機制或公民審議機制。就公民討論機制而言，其例子有南非制憲過程中的「公民參與新憲」計畫、泰國制憲過程中官方和民間所推動的公民討論及歐洲制憲會議所推動的公民討論。而在公民審議機制的部分，則以加拿大卑詩省在選區改制議題上所運作的憲改公民團和澳洲在憲法議題上所舉行過的憲改審議思辯民調為例。在介紹這些機制後，本文也檢討了公民討論機制與公民審議機制各自的優缺點。 而在前述理論及實務的分析基礎上，本文在第四章進一步分析公民審議的意義與內涵、公民審議機制的要件、以及在憲法修改程序上，公民審議機制有哪些可能的制度選擇。本文認為公民審議的主要內涵包括充分知情、對話、公開性、多元性、平等與包容性。而公民審議機制的要件與設計也將會從這些內涵中得出。除此之外，公民審議機制其實也有大小規模的問題。本文除分析小規模公民審議機制的優缺點外，也將介紹大規模的公民審議機制—審議日，並分析相關的問題。 在比較完不同公民審議機制的特點後，本文亦分析如何在不同的修憲階段中選擇適當的公民審議機制。從理論上來說，本文認為在憲改提案階段中，憲改公民團及憲改審議思辯民調都是可行的機制。而在憲改的複決階段，本文則主張應採行憲改審議日。尤其在憲改程序已納入公民複決機制時，藉由憲改審議日的採行及運作，才能讓公民在對憲法修正案進行投票之前，能夠得到真正理性的溝通與審議。 第7次修憲後，台灣的憲法修改程序已正式納入公民複決的機制。本文以為，公民對憲法提案的討論已成為公民複決修憲的前提。為了提升未來憲改的品質並強化公民複決憲改的正當性，本文主張在公民複決前，應讓公民有更多的機會可以討論憲法修正案的各項議題。藉由審議日等公民審議機制的落實，讓公民有深入參與憲改的機會與經驗。如此一來，公民複決修憲才不會淪為膚淺的口號與標語。The main subject of this thesis is the institution of citizen deliberation on constitutional amending. In order to improve the quality of constitutional amending and strengthen the legitimacy of constitutional referendum, this thesis argues that citizens should have more opportunities to deliberate on constitutional issues before constitutional referendum. To support this argument, this thesis discusses deeply the relation between constitutional amending and citizen deliberation from the following dimensions. First, theoretically speaking, the relation between constitutional amending and citizen deliberation is a recurrent concern of the theories of Civic Republicanism, Constitutional Moment and Deliberative Democracy, of which Hannah Arendt, Bruce Ackerman and Jürgen Habermas are the most representative scholars respectively. Based on their theories, an argument could be inferred that constitutional amending needs citizen deliberation. These theories also imply some principles of citizen deliberation. Secondly, there are some examples of citizen discussion on constitutional making and citizen deliberation on constitutional issues. In the part of citizen discussion, the examples are the public participation program on constitutional making in South Africa, the public participation and discussion on constitutional making in Thailand and the efforts of European Convention in European Union for public participation on European constitutional making. As for the citizen deliberation, the main examples are Citizens’ Assembly on reforming the Electoral System in British Columbia, Canada and Deliberative Polls on the Australian constitution. By introducing these institutions, the thesis also analyses the advantages and disadvantages of them. Thirdly, this thesis deals with the meaning and content of citizen deliberation, the fundamental elements of the institution of citizen deliberation and the choices of the institutions of citizen deliberation on constitutional amending. Those fundamental elements of citizen deliberation are sufficient information, dialogue, publicity, diversity, equality, inclusion. The design of the institution of citizen deliberation should follow these elements. In addition, this thesis also discusses the size of the institution of citizen deliberation. Although having some advantages, a small-sized institution encounters some problems. As a result, this thesis introduces Deliberation Day, a large-sized institution of citizen deliberation and analyzes main issues about it. After comparing Citizens’ Assembly, Deliberative Polling and Deliberation Day, the thesis also analyzes how to choose an appropriate institution of citizen deliberation in different stages of constitutional amending procedure.Theoretically speaking, Citizens’ Assembly or Deliberative Polling should be adopted in the initiative step of constitutional amending. As a body made up of randomly chosen citizens, they are authorized to initiate and bring the initiative to public referendum. Besides, most of the time issues of Constitutional amending are so important that decision must be made by the people as a whole. Consequently, a more deliberative approach to decision-making is required. Deliberation Day should be held before the constitutional referendum. Citizen will be invited to discuss the issues of constitutional amending with their neighbors at community centers throughout the land. In conclusion, after the adoption of the 7th constitutional amendment, public referendum on constitutional amending has been a formal procedure in Taiwan. In order to improve the quality of constitution amending and strengthen the legitimacy of constitutional referendum, citizens should have more opportunities to deliberate on constitutional amendment in an informed fashion before constitutional referendum. Adopting Deliberation Day in the procedure makes Taiwanese citizens have more opportunities to reflect on important issues of constitutional amendment. Otherwise, constitutional referendum will become a hollow slogan.1.序論 1 1.1.研究動機及目的 1 1.2.問題界定 4 1.3.名詞定義 5 1.4.研究範圍及研究方法 10 1.5.論文架構 12 2.憲改與公民審議機制的理論探討 17 2.1.公民共和理論—以漢娜•鄂蘭(Hannah Arendt)的理論為中心 19 2.1.1.政治行動 19 2.1.2.革命與創建行動 23 2.2.憲法時刻理論—以布魯斯•艾克曼(Bruce Ackerman)的理論為中心 29 2.2.1.憲法時刻與常態政治 30 2.2.2.憲法時刻的四大階段 36 2.3.審議民主理論—以哈伯瑪斯(Jürgen Habermas)的理論為中心 38 2.4.小結 42 3.公民審議機制在憲法制定或修改上的實踐 47 3.1.公民討論 48 3.1.1.南非 48 3.1.2.泰國 53 3.1.3.歐盟 56 3.2.公民審議 63 3.2.1. 憲改公民團(Citizens’ assembly): 以加拿大卑詩省的選區改制為例 64 3.2.1.1. 何謂憲改公民團 64 3.2.1.1.1.挑選階段 65 3.2.1.1.2.學習階段 66 3.2.1.1.3.公聽階段 68 3.2.1.1.4.審議階段 69 3.2.1.1.5.公民複決 69 3.2.1.1.6.評析 69 3.2.2.憲改的審議思辯民調(Deliberative Polling)：澳洲經驗 73 3.2.2.1.何謂審議思辯民調 74 3.2.2.2.憲改的審議思辯民調—澳洲經驗 79 3.2.2.2.1. 1999年澳洲憲改審議思辯民調 79 3.2.2.2.2. 2001年澳洲憲改審議思辯民調 80 3.2.2.2.3. 2002年澳洲憲改審議思辯民調 80 3.2.2.2.4.評析 81 3.3.小結 83 4.憲改公民審議機制的設計與選擇 87 4.1. 公民審議的意義與內涵 87 4.1.1.公民審議的意義 87 4.1.2.公民審議的內涵 89 4.1.2.1 從程序的面向來區分 89 4.1.2.1.1.充分知情 89 4.1.2.1.2.對話 90 4.1.2.1.3.公開性 92 4.1.2.1.4.多元性 93 4.1.2.1.5.平等 93 4.1.2.1.6.包容性 94 4.1.2.1.7.決策的動態性 95 4.1.2.2.從參與者的角度來看 96 4.1.2.3.從議題的內容來看 99 4.1.2.4.本文見解 100 4.2.公民審議機制的要件 104 4.2.1.充分知情 105 4.2.2.對話 107 4.2.3.公開性 108 4.2.4.多元性 110 4.2.5.平等 111 4.2.6.包容性 112 4.3.公民審議機制與規模 114 4.3.1.小規模公民審議機制及其評析 114 4.3.2.大規模公民審議機制的提出—審議日 115 4.3.2.1.為何提出審議日 117 4.3.2.2.審議日的程序 119 4.3.2.2.1.審議日的籌備作業 119 4.3.2.2.2.審議日的進行階段 120 4.3.2.3.審議日與公民審議機制要件的關聯 123 4.3.2.4.審議日的實踐 125 4.3.2.5.審議日的功能 125 4.3.2.6.對審議日的批評及回應 127 4.3.3.審議日與其他公民審議機制之比較 130 4.3.3.1.審議日和審議思辯民調之比較 130 4.3.3. 2.審議日和憲改公民團之比較 133 4.4.公民審議機制在憲法修改程序中的適用 137 4.4.1.憲改公民團 137 4.4.2.憲改審議日 140 4.4.3.憲改審議思辯民調 144 4.4.4.不同公民審議機制在憲法修改程序中的選擇 144 4.4.4.1.提案階段—憲改公民團與憲改審議思辯民調 145 4.4.4.1.1.憲改公民團 145 4.4.4.1.2.憲改審議思辯民調 147 4.4.4.2.複決階段—憲改審議日 148 4.5.小結 149 5.台灣憲改程序的公民審議機制 151 5.1.過去的憲改程序 151 5.2.現在的憲改程序 157 5.3.憲改程序的公民審議機制 159 5.3.1.提案階段—憲改公民團與憲改審議思辯民調 161 5.3.1.1.憲改公民團 161 5.3.1.2.憲改審議思辯民調 162 5.3.2. 複決階段—憲改審議日 164 5.4.公民審議機制與社團諮詢的差異 166 5.5.公民審議機制的配套措施 167 5.6.小結 168 6.結論 171 7.研究展望 1811336606 bytesapplication/pdfen-US憲法修改公民審議公民審議機制公民共和理論憲法時刻理論審議民主理論憲改公民團審議思辯民調審議日公民討論constitutional amendingcitizen deliberationthe institution of citizen deliberationcivic republicanism theoryconstitutional moment theorydeliberative democracy theorycitizens’ assemblydeliberative pollingdeliberation daycitizen discussion.thesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/56968/1/ntu-95-R92341036-1.pdf