輔仁法學第65期

本文以法蘭克福學派第一代主要的法律與政治理論家，弗朗茲．里奧波德．諾伊曼（Franz Leopold Neumann, 1900–1954）的法理論為研究對象。首先說明了諾伊曼1923年第一本博士論文的論述，尤其是批判的相對主義，以及其對法政策以及民主體制的意義。接著探討諾伊曼威瑪時期的著作，指出他受到奧地利馬克思主義者Karl Renner的影響，發展出法律體制的「社會功能命題」。
諾伊曼流亡英國與美國之後（1933–），針對法治問題完成系列著作。諾伊曼透過兩個研究視角來探討，第一個是法社會學（或歷史/政治社會學），指出主權與法治，是現代國家不可或缺的兩大基本構成要素，並由此發展出「社會本位」（society-based）的法理論。諾伊曼也由此分析自然法論與權力的關係，尤其是如何運用自然法理論於政治權力鬥爭。
第二個角度是規範性的政治哲學。這部份除了說明「一般法律」（general law）的三種功能外（尤其是保障自由、平等與財產權的倫理功能），諾伊曼認為盧梭的民主自然法論最具備進步思想要素。這種理論認為社會民主，亦即社會財富的平等，才能創造個別意志與總意志的同一性，才會有真正的民主。唯有社會民主下的法治，才是不需要全然借助外在國家權力的強制力即可真正保障自由與平等的法治。

關鍵詞：諾伊曼、批判理論、批判相對主義、功能變遷、主權、權力、法治、自然法、盧梭、社會民主

This paper focuses on the legal theory of Franz Leopold Neumann (1900-1954), the leading legal and political theorist of the first generation of the Frankfurt School. It starts with an elucidation of Neumann’s first doctoral dissertation in 1923, especially critical relativism and its implications for legal policy and democratic institutions. It then discusses the writings of Neumann during Weimar period, pointing out that the “social function thesis” of the legal institution he has developed was under the influence of the Austrian Marxist Karl Renner.
After Neumann went into exile in Britain and the United States (1933–), he completed a series of works on the issue of the rule of law. Neumann conducted this research through two perspectives. The first is sociology of law (or historical/political sociology), pointing out that sovereignty and the rule of law are two indispensable basic components of a modern state, and from this he developed “Society-based” legal theory. Neumann also analyzed the relationship between natural law theory and power, especially how to use natural law theory in power struggle.
The second perspective is normative political philosophy. In addition to explaining the three functions of “general law” (especially the ethical function of safeguarding liberty, equality and property rights), Neumann deemed Rousseau’s democratic natural law theory has the most progressive elements. This theory holds that social democracy, that is, the equality of social wealth, can create the identity of the individual will and the general will, and only then can there be true democracy. Only the rule of law under social democracy can truly guarantee freedom and equality without completely resorting to the coercive force of external state power.

Keywords: Neumann, critical theory, critical relativism, change of function, sovereignty, power, the rule of law, natural law, Rousseau, social democracy

壹、序論
貳、價值相對主義的法理學
一、兩個學術觀點
二、真實、價值與評價
三、批判的相對主義（Kritischer Relativismus）
四、綜合檢討
參、早期著作：蘊含社會民主的平等觀以及社會功能命題
肆、法理論的知識性質：批判性的法學研究
伍、社會本位的法理論：由與Kelsen的比較談起
陸、自然法的問題
一、政治的法概念與實質的法概念
二、自然法（論）與權力鬥爭
三、自然法內在合理性的判準
四、自然法的論證缺陷與類型
五、法律的一般性與社會民主的自然法論
柒、結論

2019年底出現COVID-19新型傳染病後，疫情迅速蔓延到諸多國家。為了即時有效防疫，台灣政府曾採取不同尋常的管制措施，其中部分作為缺乏明確妥適的法源依據，引發是否過度限制個人權利的問題。目前學界已有針對特定防疫措施與法律條文之探討，本文則從法律史角度，觀察從1945年起迄今，台灣因應重大疫情的各種法規範，釐清公衛緊急權法制的整體面貌與長期變遷，基於歷史回顧與省思，提出改革之建議方向。
從1945年至1991年，最高位階之訓政時期約法、憲法、動員戡亂時期臨時條款、與法律層級之傳染病防治條例，共同奠定公衛緊急權的法制基礎。1991年後，相關法規迅速發展。立法院屢次修訂傳染病防治法，擴大防治對象與措施，強化公衛政府組織及其權力。當台灣發生SARS、COVID-19重大疫情時，立法院亦特別制定限時法，設立防疫與紓困的組織、措施、經費。此外，司法院大法官解釋陸續闡述了總統緊急命令權的內涵與程序，以及立法規定防疫措施應符合之要求。
隨著常態性與臨時性防疫法規的增加，台灣因應公衛緊急事件的政府權力也逐漸膨脹，法律卻缺乏相對應的調整與限制。本文建議未來的法制改革，應明確區別不同輕重緩急的疫情事件與法律手段，推動緊急命令法制化，及訂立公衛緊急權力的專章或專法。在制定法規範時，更應注意條文內容必須遵循憲法原則，確保公衛緊急權之必要、有效、相稱、與公平，以落實人權法治的精神，兼顧身心健康與自由權利之保障。

關鍵詞：公共衛生緊急事件、緊急權力、個人權利、緊急命令、傳染病防治法、法治國原則

After COVID-19 emerged at the end of 2019, the pandemic has spread to most corners of the globe over the past few years. In response to this unprecedented public health crisis, the Taiwanese government implemented rigorous measures to contain the virus. Nonetheless, the far-reaching measures may surpass existing regulations and potentially violate human rights. These challenges underscore the difficulty of striking a balance between individual liberty, health, and security during emergencies. To delve into this issue within the context of Taiwan, this article provides a comprehensive examination of laws in response to public health emergencies since 1945, aiming to understand the legal changes and their implications.
According to this research, the history of public health emergency laws in Taiwan can be divided into two periods. From 1945 to 1991, the constitutional provisions of presidential emergency decrees and the Communicable Disease Control Act laid the legal foundation for governmeent powers to address health emergencies. Since 1991, the laws concerning public health emergencies have developed rapidly and dynamically. The Legislative Yuan has continually amended the Communicable Disease Control Act to broaden the range of regulated diseases and prevention measures. Special laws were promptly enacted to deal with the urgent needs and issues stemming from the SARS and COVID-19 pandemics. Moreover, the Constitutional Court's interpretations have clarified the authority and limitations of the executive and legislative branches in handling public health crises.
As an increasing number of legislations have granted the government more powers to address public health emergencies, the laws lack clear standards and restrictions on these powers. This article advocates for legal reforms to differentiate legal measures based on the varying degrees of urgency and significance. The legislature may enact laws on emergency decrees, amend the Communicable Disease Control Act, or create a specific act that provides a comprehensive legal framework for all public health emergencies. Furthermore, the regulations should adhere to constitutional principles, ensuring that emergency powers are necessary, effective, proportionate, and fair. This approach aims to uphold rights protection and the rule of law while safeguarding public health and individual liberties.

Keywords: public health emergency, emergency power, individual liberty, emergency decree, Communicable Disease Control Act, rule of law

壹、緒論
貳、公衛緊急法制的奠基與停滯（1945–1991）
一、極端狀態之國家緊急權
二、公衛防疫法制與組織權限1991
參、公衛緊急法制的變動與擴張（1991–迄今）
一、極端狀態之國家緊急權
二、公衛防疫法制與組織權限
（一）規範對象與防疫措施
（二）公衛防疫組織權限
（三）隔離檢疫措施與司法院釋字第690號解釋
三、因應特定疫情而臨時制定的限時法
（一）嚴重急性呼吸道症候群防治及紓困暫行條例
（二）嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎防治及紓困振興特別條例
肆、公衛緊急權法制之省思與建議
一、區別不同緊急程度之公衛權力及其法規
二、落實人權法治之公衛緊急法規範內容
伍、結論

法治國原則為現代民主立憲國家最重要的原則，作為一個由多族群組成的多元文化國，其法體系必須要能夠回應不同族群法文化的需求，其統治才會具有正當性。關於原住民身分認定，過去七十多年以來係以「漢族」的觀點制定之，而大法官在111年憲判字第4號判決中回應了法治國的基本原則，認為原住民之身分認定原則上係依自我認同原則，而身分取得所需具之認同表徵，宜尊重各自所屬原住民族之自主決定。然而，台灣原住民族在身分認定上所需具的認同表徵是什麼？而同一族群不同部落間是否具有不同的認同表徵？研究發現，台灣原住民各民族間，對於身分取得所需具之認同表徵，的確有不同的看法，而同一民族不同部落間，也會因為地理位置、歷史發展、個人學識高低而對部落族人身分取得是否應加上文化連結要件而有不同的看法。本文以為，為尊重原住民族之自主決定、協助部落之文化發展，在原住民身分認定上宜以部落作為基本的認定單位，並由（即將成立之）部落公法人之機關－部落議會認定之，且其認定程序、認定方式亦應尊重各部落原住民自主決定之。此舉不僅實現多元文化國之憲法理念，亦符合國際人權法之趨勢。

關鍵詞：法治國原則、多元文化國、阿美族、排灣族、部落成員身分、身分認定、原住民身分法、原住民、原住民族、習慣、部落公法人

The rule of law is the most essential principle of a modern constitutional nation-state. A multi-cultural nation’s legal system must echo the needs of different ethnic nations to legitimize its ruling. For the past seventy years, the state has been using Han’s culture to identify how is an indigenous person. In Judgement No. 4 of the 2022 Constitutional Court, the grand justices decided that the identification of indigenous people’s status shall be based on self-identification, and the state shall respect each indigenous nation’s will regarding the symbols for cultural identity. However, what are the symbols of cultural identity for Taiwan’s indigenous peoples? Can it be true that different tribal communities among the same indigenous nation require different symbols for cultural identity? This study shows that Taiwanese indigenous peoples’ have different ideas about the symbols for cultural identity, so as different communities among the same indigenous nation. In order to respect indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and promote indigenous cultures, this paper suggests that every tribe (indigenous community) should determine their own tribal membership. It will not only fulfill the constitutional philosophy of a multi-cultural state, but is in line with international human rights law.

Keywords: the rule of law, multicultural state, the Amis nation, the Paiwan nation, tribal membership, membership criteria, the Status Act of Indigenous Peoples, indigenous, indigenous people, custom, tribal public corporation

壹、緒論
一、法治國原則與原住民族權利
二、原住民身分法的制定與問題
三、問題意識
四、研究方法
貳、阿美族部落成員身分認定觀點
一、阿美族A部落基本資料與調查結果
二、阿美族B部落基本資料與調查結果
三、阿美族C部落基本資料與調查結果
四、小結
參、排灣族部落成員身分認定觀點
一、排灣族D部落（Z村）基本資料與調查結果
二、排灣族E部落基本資料與調查結果
三、小結
肆、符合法治國原則的原住民身分認定法制
一、多元且複雜的身分認定要件
二、以部落作為身分認定的基本單位
三、立法政策建議
四、結論

司法院大法官作成釋字第803號解釋，其中詳盡地處理了限制原住民持製獵槍與獵捕宰殺野生動物之立法的合憲性界限，大法官更是首次在釋字中，承認原住民族的文化實踐具有權利性質，本號解解對於未來原住民權利的影響極其重大，本文即以本號解釋為中心，分析原住民族文化實踐權利化後可能衍生的議題，並具體地分析大法官有關干預此項文化權利的憲法界限何在，以及其可能存在的法律過度干預或管制向度不足等疑義。

關鍵詞：原住民族、違憲審查、文化權利、第三代人權、比例原則

In the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 803 (2021), the Constitutional Court carefully delineates the constitutional boundaries of legislations regulating the possession of hunting rifles and the hunting of wild animals. For the first time, the Court affirms that the indigenous peoples have a right to cultural practices, which will have a far-reaching impact upon the rights of the indigenous peoples. Taking the Interpretation as a point of departure, this Article explores the potential issues following the recognition of the right to cultural practices. It analyzes the Court’s view on the constitutional boundaries of government restraints on the cultural right and the problems of over-regulation and under-regulation that may arise.

Keywords: Indigenous Peoples, Judicial Review, Cultural Rights, Third-Generation Human Rights, Proportionality Principle

壹、導論
貳、釋字第803號解釋之見解
一、原住民族文化權利的肯認
二、槍砲條例的審查
三、野保法的審查
四、小結
參、原住民文化權利的共通議題
一、原住民文化保護與基本國策條款
二、原住民文化的權利化問題
三、反省大法官的意見
肆、槍砲條例相關規範的合憲性議題
一、自製獵槍與法律明確性原則
二、自製獵槍與比例原則
伍、野保法相關規範的合憲性議題
一、非營利自用與排除保育類野生動物的合憲性解釋
二、事前核准、其申請事項與突發性狩獵的合法要件
陸、結語

法官依法裁判（具體來說，指依法律與法進行裁判），是一項重要的德國憲法誡命，也成為德國法學方法論的制度背景與重要的問題意識。本文將透過問題史的研究方法，探討德國法學方法論如何處理法官依法裁判所帶來的疑難。
本文將指出，法官依法裁判的誡命，在十九世紀末德國統一後出現，成為德國法官所應遵循的重要法律誡命。但此誡命出現後，德國法學方法論就反思到單憑法律難以提供法官判決所需的所有規範論證依據，因此產生了許多的解決之道。自由法學與利益法學在十九世紀末到威瑪共和時期，提出解決法律漏洞的方式。到了基本法時代，價值法學提出以法原則建立起來的內在體系，成為法官解釋與填補漏洞的依據。但價值法學的思維受到許多挑戰，不少學者認為，單憑法學方法論提出的觀點與方法規則，無法落實法官受法律與法拘束的憲法誡命，進而提出許多其他的方式來協助落實此一誡命。這些討論都強調法官受拘束與法官自主相互對立，為了達成法官受法拘束的要求，必須犧牲法官自主空間。但這樣又可能造成法官無法依個案需要，追求個案正義或適應社會變遷之結果。純粹法學與框架導向理論試圖克服此一對立帶來的二律背反。本文最後簡單說明此一問題史反思所指出的德國法學思維特性。

關鍵詞：法學方法論、問題史研究方法、法官依法律與法裁判、漏洞、價值法學、自由法學、利益法學、純粹法學

This paper tries to use the method of history of problems, to analyze the development of Germany legal methodology.
This paper will point out that the commandment of “the Decisions of judge should accord to the law” appeared after the reunification of Germany at the end of the nineteenth century and became an important legal commandment for German judges to obey. However, after the appearance of this commandment, the German methodology of legal science has reflected on the fact that it is difficult to provide all the normative arguments required by the judicial judgment by the legal codes alone which enacted by parliament, therefore the scholars of the methodology of legal science developed many methods, to provide the legal arguments for the judicial decisions. They all noticed that the judicial decisions should on the one hand obey the law, on the other hand, the judge should also in necessary condition fill the gap of legal code to apply the law. These two commandments can’t be so easily harmoniously achieved. The free law movement, the jurisprudence of interest, the jurisprudence of value, and many other thinking in the methodology of legal science developed various methods in the different historical and constitutional conditions to solute this problem.
Besides, many scholars believe that it is impossible to accomplish the constitutional commandment that judges are bound by the law based solely on the methodological rules. Therefore, they proposed many other ways to help the judge in the case to achieve this commandment. These discussions presume that the restraint of judges and the autonomy of judges are opposed to each other. For achieving the requirement that judges be bound by the law, the space of judges' autonomy must be eliminated. Pure jurisprudence and framed order theory attempt to overcome the antinomy. These two theories try to prove that the autonomy of judge can be consistent with the constitutional commandment that judges are bound by the law. In the end, this paper briefly explains the characteristics of German legal thinking.

Keywords: Legal Methodology, History of Problems, Gap, Legal Binding of Judicial Decision, Jurisprudence of Value, Jurisprudence of Freedom, Jurisprudence of Interest, Pure Theory of Law

壹、前言：法官依法（法律與法）裁判成為德國法學方法論的重要制度前提與問題
貳、德國法學方法論的兩個疑問：「法律的不完全性與外於法律的法源是否破壞法官受法拘束」問題與「法官最終解釋法律」之權力問題
一、問題的出現：十九世紀到二十世紀初，法律成為法官裁判依據的主要法源及其產生之疑問
二、由落實「法官依法律裁判」所產生的兩個疑難
參、由「法官依法律裁判」到「法官受法與法律拘束，進行裁判」產生的問題：如何讓法官引入其他法規範來協助論證判決，卻不會讓法官違反依法裁判之誡命？
一、從二十世紀初到威瑪共和：社會變遷帶來對「法官依法律裁判」誡命的挑戰
二、基本法時代的「法官依法律與法進行裁判」誡命，在法學方法論產生的質疑與回應
三、小結：難以找到可清楚限制法官權限的法學方法
肆、「由法治國變成法官國」?：對法官解釋權力的限制
一、以方法論解釋與填補漏洞規則以外的方式來限制法官權力
（一）以不可動搖的立法者原意與制憲者原意，來防止法官恣意解釋
（二）以法官的倫理責任來限制法官的解釋權力
（三）以法官同儕之理性來限制法官解釋權力
二、克服法官依法律與法進行裁判所面對的二律背反：越多自主，越少拘束；但又不可能完全拘束法官自主裁判之空間
伍、結論：由法官依法裁判誡命而來的德國法學思維之特性

本文以日本殖民統治時期京城帝國大學和台北帝國大學的公法學者為對象，探討這些公法學者如何思考和認識殖民地。首先，本文介紹京城帝國大學法文學部的形成，京城帝國大學在規模上接近日本內地的帝國大學，優於台北帝國大學。兩帝國大學也一定程度受到殖民地總督府的控制。本文於掌握兩地公法學者的論述後，分別以「顯教的台北帝大公法學」與「密教的京城帝大公法學」進行討論。顯教的台北帝大公法學者，著重於透過國體論的觀點建構公法學思想，多結合歷史、民族等論述建構天皇與臣民的關係，有的無視殖民地的差異，有的則接觸到殖民地歷史的特殊性。密教的京城帝大公法學則以近代立憲主義論述建構公法學思想，以帝國公法架構思考殖民地在帝國憲法當中所處的位置和分類，甚至細緻地看待殖民地行政法制，而批評殖民地法治薄弱，但是從研究取向和方法論來看，殖民地社會終究不是他們的關注焦點。透過以上考察，可以共同看到殖民地公法學者終究是在以日本帝國的統治權為主的架構下認識或是無視殖民地，欠缺從殖民地社會思考的論述，可以看到殖民地社會作為近代日本帝國憲法的他者。

關鍵詞：法思想史、帝國大學、顯密二元、朝鮮、殖民地

In this study, I examine how colonial public law scholars at the Imperial Universities in colonial Korea (Keijo Imperial University) and Taiwan (the Taipei Imperial University) viewed colonialism. First of all, I explore the formation of the faculty of law at Keijo Imperial University. The scale of Keijo Imperial University is close to the Imperial University in the Japanese mainland, superior to Taipei Imperial University. The two Imperial Universities were also under the control of the colonial General-Governors. In particular, I explore whether or not scholars at those universities could freely discuss potentially controversial topics, such as colonialism. This article distinguishes between “ the exoteric Taipei Imperial University” and “ the esoteric Keijo Imperial University” for analysis after understanding the discourses of the public law scholars in the two places. Public law scholars in Taipei Imperial University, focus on constructing public law and the relationship between the emperor and his subjects through the perspective of the theory of Kokutai, in combination with history and ethnicity. One scholar clearly recognizes the political aspect of colonial rule and touches on colonial culture to emphasize the specialty of colonies. However, other public law scholars constructed a largely fictitious imperial Japanese tradition that had little to do with real Japanese history and the colony's history. Public law scholars in the esoteric Keijo Imperial University constructs the idea of public law based on modern constitutionalism. Scholars at Keijo Imperial University were able to emphasize the importance of the separation of powers and individual liberties. They also consider the position and classification of the colonies in the framework of imperial public law. even someone criticizes the weak of rule of law in the colonies. However, from the research approach and methodology, they do not pay more attention to colonial society. From these two types, it can be seen that colonial public law scholars ignored colonial society under the framework of the ruling power of the Japanese Empire. It can be said that colonial society is the other of the Japanese imperial constitution law.

Keywords: history of legal thought, Imperial University, Exoteric-Esoteric, Korea, colony

壹、前言
貳、朝鮮近代法學教育的形成
一、近代法學教育的登場
二、殖民統治初期的法學教育
三、 比較視野下的京城帝大法學教育
參、 顯教的台北帝大公法學
一、追求天皇親政的井上孚麿
二、強調服從的土橋友四郎
三、對文化關心的中村哲
四、殖民地社會的困頓
肆、 密教的京城帝大公法學
一、立憲主義的認識與挑戰
（一）清宮四郎
（二）鵜飼信成
二、作為例外的殖民地
（一）松岡修太郎的外地論述
（二）清宮四郎的外地論述
三、法治薄弱的殖民地
伍、 結論

韓国の憲法裁判所は、具体的規範統制、弾劾審判、政党解散審判、権限争議審判、憲法訴願審判の権限を有している。抽象的規範統制の権限は無く、憲法裁判所、国会、政府、大法院は同格の存在と考えられている。しかし、憲法裁判所の権限を巡っては以下のような問題が起こっている。
第1は大法院との摩擦である。違憲審査で憲法裁判所が行った決定はすべての国家機関を拘束することになっている。一方、法院は司法府として法解釈権をもっているため、憲法裁判所がある法律について単純に違憲無効とするのではなく、「〇〇のように解釈したら違憲である」という判断（限定違憲決定）を出した場合に、法院がそれに拘束されるのかという問題が生じる。大法院はこのような憲法裁判所の解釈には拘束されないという見方を示しており、両者の間に摩擦が生じている。
第2の問題は政治の司法化である。特に弾劾審判、政党解散審判、権限争議審判は政治の司法化状況をもたらし、統治構造に変化をもたらしているように思われる。
台湾の司法構造は韓国とは異なるが、こうした韓国の事例は憲法裁判制度を導入した台湾にも一定の示唆を与えるものであると考えられる。

キーワード：憲法裁判所、大法院、管轄権、「限定違憲」決定、「政治の司法化」

This article introduces the evolution of the Constitutional Court of South Korea's power and discusses the issues that have arisen. The Constitutional Court has the following jurisdictions: adjudication on concrete normative control, adjudication on impeachment, adjudication on dissolution of a political party, adjudication on competence disputes, and constitutional complaint trails. The Constitutional Court has no power to adjudicate on abstract normative control. The Constitutional Court is considered to hold a status equivalent to that of the National Assembly, the government, and the Supreme Court. However, the following problems have appeared over the powers of the Constitutional Court. The first problem is the friction between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision of unconstitutionality shall bind the ordinary courts, other state agencies and local governments. On the other hand, since the ordinary courts, as the judicial branch, have the power to legal interpretation. When the Constitutional Court renders judgments like "it is unconstitutional if interpreted in the condition of 〇〇" (conditional unconstitutional decision) instead of a simple declaration of unconstitutionality, the question is arises whether the ordinary Court is bound by such decisions or not. The Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts are going through a fair amount of tension over the modified holdings of “conditional unconstitutionality” and “conditional constitutionality.” The Constitutional Court takes the view that these are sub-categories of the decision of unconstitutionality, whereas the ordinary courts argue that they are merely a form of legal interpretation. The difference in their views is causing friction between the two institutions. The second problem is the judicialization of politics. In particular, the constitutional Court’s adjudications on impeachment, on dissolution of a political party, and on competence disputes seem to have brought about a situation of “judicialization of politics” and changes in the structure of governing system. Although Taiwan's judicial structure differs from that of South Korea, these South Korean cases may provide some insights for Taiwan, which has introduced a constitutional review system.

Keywords: Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, jurisdiction, “conditional unconstitutionality”, “judicialization of politics”

韓國憲法裁判所具備具體的規範統制、彈劾審判、解散政黨審判、權限爭議審判、憲法訴願審判之權限。憲法裁判所因為沒有抽象規範統制權限，被認為與國會、政府、大法院相當地位。但是，關於憲法裁判所的權限，產生以下的問題。首先是憲法裁判所與大法院的摩擦。藉由違憲審查，憲法裁判所所做的決定拘束所有的政府機關。另外一方面，法院作為司法機關擁有法律解釋之權限的關係，憲法裁判所就特定法律做出「如果是按照〇〇這樣解釋的話，是違憲的」的判斷（限定違憲決定），而非單純的違憲無效之決定的情形，法院是否會受到該決定的拘束即產生問題。大法院對此採取這樣的憲法裁判所之解釋不拘束的見解，由此產生大法院與憲法裁判所的摩擦。第二個問題是政治的司法化。特別是彈劾審判、政黨解散審判、權限爭議審判帶來政治的司法化現象，對統治結構也帶來變化。台灣的司法架構雖然與韓國有所不同，但是透過本文對於韓國個案的討論，對於將憲法裁判制度導入的台灣而言，也提供了一定的啟示。

關鍵字：憲法裁判所、大法院、管轄權、限定違憲決定、政治司法化

壹、はじめに
貳、沿革
參、憲法裁判所の権限
一、違憲法律審判（憲法裁判所法41～47条）
二、弾劾審判（憲法裁判所法48～54条）
三、政党解散審判（憲法裁判所法55～60条）
四、権限争議の審判（憲法裁判所法61～67条）
五、憲法訴願の審判（憲法裁判所法68～75条）
肆、憲法裁判所の決定様式の問題
一、憲法不合致決定
二、限定合憲決定
三、限定違憲決定
伍、憲法裁判所を巡る問題
一、変形決定を巡る問題
二、憲法裁判所決定と「政治の司法化」
（一）権限争議審判
（二）政党解散審判
（三）弾劾審判
陸、韓国憲法裁判所の特徴と台湾との比較
柒、おわりに

近代日本の最初の憲法――大日本帝国憲法（明治憲法）――と日本公法学は、ドイツ公法学の影響下に形成された。20世紀の初め、1920年代まで、この憲法の下で議会制政治を発展させた日本では、しかし1930年代に、軍部の政治的影響力増大と超国家主義の台頭により立憲制の変質・空洞化が発生し、立憲制擁護を志向する公法学者には弾圧が加えられ沈黙を強いられるに至る。この過程において最大の焦点となった問題が、「君主（天皇）機関説」と「国体」観念との関係であったことはよく知られているが、しかし現代日本では、その法学的意味が必ずしも適切には理解されないまま、一連の政治過程としてのみ言及されていることが多い。本稿ではこのような関心から、近代ドイツ・日本の公法学の展開を概観し、併せて20世紀半ばに両者がともに経験した苦い「挫折」の意味を振り返ることとする。最後、20世紀前半のドイツ・日本における主流派憲法学を形成した公法実証主義は、法と政治の領域を厳格に区分することにより政治権力の恣意的な行使を制御した。現時点においても、学ぶべきものが多くあるのではないかと問いかけをもっている。

キーワード：公法学史、公法実証主義、国家有機体説、国家法人説、国体論争

This article examines the significant development and discourse surrounding German and Japanese public law from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, aiming to explore the significance of related concepts within a specific historical context. The earliest constitution of modern Japan--the Constitution of the Empire of Japan--and Japanese public law were formed under the influence of German public law. From the early 20th century to the 1920s, Japan’s parliamentary politics was carried out under this constitution. However, in the 1930s, the military's political influence increased, and the rise of supranationalism led to the deterioration and erosion of the constitutional system. Public law scholars who supported the constitutional system were suppressed and silenced. The central point of contention in this process revolved around " Tenno Kikansetsu", "kokutai" and their related concepts. The Argument around these concepts was well known, but their legal significance was not properly understood by modern Japanese.
They were often understood primarily as a series of political processes. This article aims to address this concern by investigating the development of public law in Germany and Japan. It also reviews the significance of the "setbacks" experienced by both countries in the mid-20th century. This article examines the discussion of German public law, so as to understand how these related concepts developed in Japan. This article finds both Germany and Japan were confronted with the challenge of building a modern nation state with immature civil societies, resulting in public law playing a pivotal role in assisting in the nation-building process. It also leaded to a weakening of academic independence. Finally, the article offers insights into public law positivism. It becomes apparent that in the first half of the 20th century, Germany and Japan adopted legal positivism as the mainstream constitutional law approach, emphasizing a strict distinction between law and politics to control the arbitrary exercise of political power. There are valuable lessons for us in modern times to learn from public legal positivism.

Keywords: the history of public law, public legal positivism, the theory of the state as an organic entity, the theory of the state as a legal person, the debate on kokutai

近代日本最早的憲法：大日本帝國憲法，與日本公法學是在德國公法學的影響下所形成。20世紀初到1920年代為止，日本議會政治在此憲法下開展，但是到了1930年代，軍部的政治影響力增大與超國家主義的興起，造成立憲制度變質與空洞化，擁護立憲制度為志的公法學者們遭到鎮壓，強迫他們噤聲。在這個過程中最大的爭點是「君主（天皇）機關說」與「國體」及其相關的概念，向來為人所知，但是就其在法學上的意義，在現代日本，尚未被妥適地理解，而多只以一連串的政治過程來理解。本文考察了特殊脈絡條件下德國公法學的討論脈絡，由此了解這些所產生的相關觀念在日本的特殊脈絡條件下如何展開。並且看到日本和德國面臨市民社會不成熟的狀況下，強行近代國家建設，公法學被賦予協助建設國家的角色時，影響到學術的獨立性，不得不說是公法學發展的致命傷，另外一方面，也看到20世紀前期公法法實證主義嚴守政治與法律的分離，尋求對政治權力的控制，對於現代的我們也提供了許多啟發。

關鍵字：公法學史、公法實證主義、國家有機體說、國家法人說、國體論爭

壹、序言
貳、19世紀から20世紀初めまでのドイツ公法学の展開
一、法治国家理念から国家有機体説へ
二、国家法人説と公法実証主義
三、公法実証主義の批判と継承
參、日本におけるドイツ公法学の受容
一、明治憲法とドイツ公法学
二、日本公法学の創始者；穂積八束
三、美濃部憲法学の登場と1912年「国体」論争
肆、20世紀前期における日・独公法学の軌跡
一、「大正デモクラシー」の時代の日本公法学
二、ヴァイマール共和国のドイツ公法学
三、日・独公法学の挫折
伍、結語