輔仁法學第41期

美國自1970年代起，聯邦機關制定法規每每受到企業、公益團體或一般人民的強烈挑戰。雖然美國行政程序法設有對草案評論與聽證兩種程序機制供人民表達意見，仍無法避免人民對法規命令內容提起訴訟。為避免人民訴諸司法、減少行政成本與強化受法規影響特定對象權益之程序保障，美國行政法發展出協商式規則訂定的制度（negotiated rulemaking）。聯邦環境保護署（EPA）自率先採用協商方式訂定法規後，大幅度降低行政成本與爭訟案件數量。繼許多聯邦機關跟進後，促使國會於1991年完成協商式規則訂定的立法。（Negotiated Rulemaking Act）。
協商式規則訂定屬於傳統命令訂定的補充程序，我國若能將之引入行政法體系應無太多相容性的困難。本文將比較美國與我國法規命令訂定程序制度之特色，以及兩國對於程序義務違反之效果與救濟。其次將介紹美國協商式規則訂定程序之立法背景、規範內容與特色。本文並以環境事務為例，介紹協商式規則訂定法之實務運作情形與檢討。最後透過對於外國法制實際運作經驗之觀察，及其對民眾參與行政決策之影響，提出如何將協商式規則訂定程序以階段方式納入我國法制之具體建議方向。本文期待我國日後能參酌國外立法例與實務經驗，嘗試於特定管制領域率先建構符合本土化應用的協商式規則訂定的程序機制與累積實踐經驗。當國內對於協商式規則訂定程序相關的理論、本土法制相互調和與實務經驗發展成熟後，最終得以將協商式規則訂定程序納入行政程序法，以資作為全國行政機關採用協商程序訂定法規的一般實定法基礎。

關鍵字：法規命令訂定、預告與評論、聽證程序、民眾參與、協商式規則訂定、環境行政、行政程序法

U.S. Federal Administrative Procedure Act （U.S. APA） is the first administrative procedure law in the world that has established agency rulemaking procedure framework. U.S. APA provides two rulemaking models: trial-like hearing and notice-and-comment. They provide opportunities for general public as well as interest parties to participate agency rulemaking in different degree. U.S APA , however, used to suffer from a lack of effective and less time-consuming face-to-face procedure-based framework that facilitates conflict of interests while proposing rulemaking. The academic and courts thus called for a reform of traditional rulemaking because of its limitations in reducing litigation. The negotiated rulemaking had thus developed in some specific federal agency rulemaking. The U.S. EPA has shown high interests in adopting negotiated rulemaking especially in the context of pollutant discharge standards. The success of EPA’s rulemaking has encouraged some other federal agency to adopt similar negotiation rulemaking scheme and finally compel the Congress to pass Negotiation Rulemaking Act in 1990. Many commentators and federal agency supported the idea of negotiation rulemaking while others criticize for its promise of reducing litigation and less time-consuming.
Taiwan has adopted somehow similar procedure framework of rulemaking adopted by U.S. APA. However, Taiwanese citizens do not allowed to challenging the legitimacy of specific regulation itself in administrative court system. Taiwan’s environmental decision-making, for instance, has also suffered from harmonization of conflict of interests. In this context, Taiwan could learn valuable lessons from the development of negotiation rulemaking in the U.S. This article will first conduct a comparative legal analysis between the U.S. and Taiwan’s rulemaking framework. This article will then present a brief introduction of the development of the U.S. negotiation rulemaking as well as its regulatory framework. In this part of the article will present three case studies and explain why it is important to adopt negotiation rulemaking in the context of environmental law decision-making. The last part of this article will examine the promise and limits of developing negotiated type administrative procedure in Taiwan. In this part of the article, the author proposes a step-by-step process of applying negotiation rulemaking in the context of Taiwan’s legal system.

Keywords: rulemaking, Administrative Procedure Act, public participation, negotiated rulemaking, environmental decision-making, judicial review, due process of law

目 次
壹、前言
貳、美國與我國之法規命令訂定程序之特色與比較
一、行政程序法所規範之法規命令訂定程序
（一）預告與評論程序
（二）聽證程序
二、特別法規範之規則訂定程序
三、法規命令訂定程序義務違反之效果與救濟
（一）程序義務違反類型
（二）司法監督與審查標準
四、小結
參、美國協商式規則訂定程序之介紹
一、協商式規則訂定程序之內容與特色
（一）協商式規則訂定程序使用時機
（二）協商式規則訂定程序委員會的組成
（三）協商程序的進行
（四）協商程序的終結與預告評論之續行
二、協商式規則訂定程序法制化後之實踐與檢討
三、協商式規則訂定程序於實例分析：以環境法規命令訂定為例
（一）環境法規積極採用協商式規則訂定程序之背景
（二）實例分析
（三）小結
肆、美國協商式規則訂定程序對我國法之借鏡
一、透過現行法制的調整與實務運作累積行政程序的協商經驗
二、以行政規則或自治法規訂定特別行政程序
三、特定管制法律或行政程序法相關規定之修正
伍、結論

2009年4月26日海峽兩岸為保障人民權益，維護兩岸交流秩序，簽署了「海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議」，本協議以國際條約、引渡法之基本精神為藍本，雖已具體架構及確立合作模式，但在某些立場上仍與國際刑事司法合作之基本原則有違，本文首先從我國刑事司法合作困境之原因切入，介紹兩岸刑事司法合作之經過，再輔以國際上重要國際刑事司法合作模式之內容，逐一評析本協議曖昧不清及有待補強之處，希望提供意見做為將來進一步修正之參考。

關鍵詞：國際刑事司法合作、引渡、刑事訴訟程序之移轉管轄、被判刑人之移交、犯罪所得沒收

In order to protect the rights of the people across the Taiwan Strait, and safeguard cross-strait cooperation order, "Cross-strait Joint Fight against Crime and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement" had been signed in April 26, 2009. This agreement has served the basic spirit of International Treaty and Extradition Law as an model. Although it had established specific cooperation types, but still contrary to the basic principles with the international criminal justice cooperation in some position. At first this paper will analyze the plight of Taiwan's criminal justice cooperation, and introduce the process of cross-strait criminal judicial cooperation. Then it provides the supplement to important international criminal justice cooperation models, and reviews the ambiguous、improvement parts of this agreement one by one. Such research hope to provide advice and further amendment opinions as future reference.

Keywords: international judicial co-operation in criminal matters, extradition, transfer of criminal proceedings, transfer of offender, Confiscation of proceeds of crime

目 次
壹、前言－條約前置原則
貳、我國國際刑事司法合作之實踐
一、我國刑事司法合作之困境
二、現況說明
三、兩岸刑事司法合作之經過
參、兩岸協議是否符合國際法上之基本原則
一、本協議僅符合國際法上部分之重要原則
二、本協議曖昧不清之處
肆、「海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議」之評析
一、本協議屬「區域刑事司法合作」之性質
二、被判刑人之移管
三、證據及犯罪所得之移交
四、應增加暫時逮捕、羈押罪犯處分之依據
五、凍結及沒收財產之實踐
六、是否承認及執行他方判決
七、參採刑事訴訟程序移轉管轄之探討
伍、結論及建議

賄賂依刑法係採必要的沒收、追徵原則，但是賄賂從取得以迄不能沒收事由發生，到最終裁判時，賄賂的價額可能產生變動的情況，此時究應依何時點計算追徵價額即為一大問題。對此，本文借助日本學說、實務的相關討論，並從量刑的責任原則等面向進行檢討，試以找出適當的處理方式。

關鍵字：賄賂、沒收、追徵、責任原則、量刑

According to the legal provisions of Criminal Code, the imperative principle is adopted to the forfeiture and indemnification of proceeds derived from bribery, but considering the value of proceeds that can’t be forfeited due to other law's regulations may be various during the period from the occurrence of bribery to the final conviction, it would be a big problem regarding when is the opportune moment to calculate the value of indemnification. Therefore, the author refers the related theories from Japan and practical operation to this issue, and also integrates the viewpoint from the obligation principles in measuring penalty for searching out an appropriate method to deal with problem.

Keyword： Bribery, Forfeiture, Substitute Assets Forfeiture, obligation principles, measurement of penalty

目 次
壹、前言
貳、我國與日本學說、實務之見解
一、我國
（一）實務
（二）學說
二、日本
（一）實務
（二）學說
參、檢討與分析
一、各說的檢討
（一）取得時說與追徵裁判時說
（二）裁判時說
（三）沒收不能時說
（四）個別化說
二、沒收、追徵性質的分析
（一）沒收之性質
（二）追徵之性質
三、從量刑責任原則的檢討
（一）量刑責任原則之意義與作用
（二）追徵範圍與量刑責任原則的關係
四、可能的解決方向
肆、結語

於現今分工細膩的社會，以使者傳達本人之意思表示，或以代理人代為意思表示及代受意思表示等等，皆為商業所普遍之行為，我國民法亦允許利用第三人履行債務，然如該第三人發生有關於故意或過失致債務不履行，債務人應如何負其責任？債權人得向何人請求損害賠償？我國民法第224條設有規定：「債務人之代理人或使用人關於債之履行有故意或過失時，債務人應與自己之故意或過失附同一責任，但當事人另有訂定者，不在此限。」是以我國民法僅規定履行輔助人包括債務人之代理人或使用人，惟此代理人是否包括法定代理人？使用人之概念為何？實務上雖有相關判例已為解釋，惟說理尚不明確，又債編修正後之民法第217條第3項，乃參照民法第224條之履行輔助人概念而設，則該項之「被害人之代理人或使用人」概念，是否已將民法第224條之履行輔助人概念加以擴張？實務見解是否妥適？不無疑問。
本文擬就民法上履行輔助人責任中，關於所謂代理人及使用人之概念，試加以分析關於法定代理人之爭議、使用人之指揮監督權限等問題外，並擬就民法上「與有過失」亦同樣引用之履行輔助人概念，探討我國民法上履行輔助人之範圍是否因新修法而有所擴張，最後再評析實務上關於「與有過失」等使用人概念之適用正確與否，希冀能對於釐清我國債務履行輔助人之責任範圍，有所助益。

關鍵字：與有過失、履行輔助人、使用人、法定代理人、民法第224條

Being in a society that divides labors delicately, using messenger to convey one self's intention, or asking an agent to declare his intention and receiving an intention, are all popular actions in commerce. Civil law in our country also allows using the third person to discharge a debt, but when the third person do something intentionally or failure to discharge a debt because of fault, what kind of liability should the obligor manage ? Who can an obligee claim damages from? Civil Provision 224 in our country has mentioned that “When debtor’s agent or commuter has intention or default on accomplishing debt, debtor should take the same responsibility on one self’s intention or default. But if the client has another agreement, do not bind on these limitations.” So that civil law in our country only mentions that helper of the actual doer includes the agent or commuter of the debtor, but did the law-defined agent include in the agent’s region? What’s the commuter about? Although we have some trials in practice explained it already, the theory is still not clear enough; also, the article 217, item 3 of the civil law, after revising debt law, is designed and placed according to the concept of the helper of the doer, so did the opinion “victim’s agent or commuter” on this item has broaden the concept of the helper of the doer on article 224 of the civil law? Is the opinion in practice suitable for it? I think there are still lots of questions.
This article intend to deal not only with the so-called agent and commuter’s concept to analyze the arguments on law-defined agent and the commuter’s directing and chancellor’s right limitations, based on the responsibility of helper of the doer on civil law, but try to use “contributory negligence” also use the opinion of the helper of the doer on civil law, to discuss the region of the helper of the doer has been broaden because of revising the law or not. Finally, we may judge the concept of commuter according to commuter has been used correctly or not, and hope it will help clearing the region of responsibility of the helper of the doer on debt.

Keywords: Helper of the doer, Commuter, Agent, Agent for Victim, Civil Article 224

目 次
壹、概說
貳、民法第224條之履行輔助人
一、概說
二、代理人
（一）文義解釋
（二）法定代理性質
（三）問題爭點之提出
（四）實務見解
（五）學者對於包括法定代理人見解之批評
（六）本文見解
三、使用人
（一）學說見解關於民法第224條之「使用人」定義
（二）民法第224條之責任性質
（三）使用人是否須受債務人干涉爭議
（四）實務見解關於民法第224條之「使用人」定義
（五）使用人之範圍
參、民法第217條之「被害人之代理人或使用人」概念
一、概說
二、被害人之代理人
三、被害人之使用人
（一）實務見解
（二）學者見解
（三）實務見解中「使用人」之再探討
（四）小結
肆、結論

2009年1月民法物權編修正，關於共有物分割，有下列幾點值得矚目：（1）關於不分割之契約之效力，就動產與不動產為分別考量（2）裁判分割共有物方法之多樣化（3）兼具移轉主義與宣言主義之優點。本次民法修正對於共有物分割之訴之性質、當事人、利害關係第三人之訴訟參加、共有物分割裁判之費用以及共有物分割之上訴應無所影響，應注重者，由於裁判分割共有物之方法朝向多樣化、活性化發展，法院為共有物分割之裁判時，所抱持之標準除各共有人間之公平以外，尚應考慮共有物使用收益之效能，靈活運用各種共有物分割之方法，以達公平與效益。

關鍵字：物權、共有物分割、共有物分割之訴、共有人、共有物

Civil Code of real Rights has been modified in January in 2009.The following statements about the partition of common property should be focusing on:
1.The effect of non-partition covenant should be considered separately by personal property and real property.
2.Multi-methods of partition ordered by the court.
3.Combining the advantages of both principles:the co-owner acquires the ownership of the distinct part when the partition is effective and the co-owner acquires the ownership of the distinct part when the relationship of partition was established.
This revision of Civil Code shall have no influence on the essential of partition litigation,the litigant, the intervention of the relevant third party,the court costs and expenses and the appeal.What is important is,because the development of partition methods ordered by the court tend to be various and flexible, when the court makes judgement on partition litigation,not only according to the fairness among the co-owners,but also considering the efficiency of using and collecting benefits from the common property and making use of various partition methods flexibly in order to approach justice and beneficial result.

Key word: real Rights, partition litigation, the judgement on partition litigation, the co-owner, the thing held in division

目 次
壹、前言
貳、共有物分割
一、共有物分割之意義
二、共有物分割之本質
三、共有物分割之效力
參、共有物分割之請求
一、共有物分割請求之方法
二、不得分割共有物之情形
肆、共有物分割之訴
一、共有物分割之訴之性質
二、共有物分割之訴之當事人
三、裁判上分割之方法
四、對利害關係第三人之保護
五、共有物分割裁判上之費用
六、共有物分割之上訴
伍、結語

自二十世紀中葉以來，國際社會出於協調各主權國家租稅管轄權及避免雙重課稅之考量，開始大量運用雙邊或多邊之租稅條約、協定或公約，以圖在日益緊密之國際經貿互動關係中，提供與納稅義務人更加富有中立性之稅制環境。然則利之所在，弊亦隨之。自有此等租稅條約或公約以來，納稅義務人濫用其條約上地位之情事，即難以完全防杜，並對各享有國際稅收管轄權之租稅法上實體（國家或地區），造成重大之困擾。因此，如何防杜此等納稅義務人濫用條約地位之行為，當為國際稅法學上無從迴避之課題。而在各種防杜模式中，透過內國法院之裁判、適用內國稅法上所承認之租稅規避防杜措施以圖解決此等問題，可謂為法國國際稅法實務中，最顯著之特色。本文自法國中央行政法院近期二個指標性案例出發，探討此等濫用行為在內國稅法秩序中透過司法裁判加以防杜之可能性，除藉以說明法國稅法實務之最新動態外，並為此等問題在我國法制中之解決，預作學理上之準備。

關鍵字：稅法、國際稅法、國際雙重課稅、投資抵減、荷蘭三明治、租稅規避、國際避稅、權利濫用

Since the mid-twentieth century, in order to mediate the conflicts among multiple tax jurisdictions of sovereign countries and to avoid double taxation, the international community has been adopting voluminous bi-party or multi-party taxation treaties, agreements or conventions, aiming to provide the tax payer with a more neutral taxation environment while international trade transactions become more and more intensive. However, such development is not free from cost. In the history of taxation treaties or conventions, the tax payer's abuse of the protections provided thereby has never been fully prevented and has caused significant impacts on various tax legal entities (countries of regions) which have jurisdiction over international taxations. Given such phenomenon, the prevention of tax payer's abuse of treaty protection becomes an inevitable task facing international tax law studies. Among various prevention methods, domestic courts' efforts to prevent tax circumvention by adopting prevention methods recognized by domestic tax laws in their court rulings shall be the most significant feature of French international tax law regime. This article makes reference to two noteworthy decisions recently rendered by Conseil d’Etat and explores the feasibility for domestic legal systems to prevent abusive behaviors through judicial rulings. In addition to being an introduction of the most updated development of French tax laws practice, this article also aims to provide our legal system with additional academic basis to deal with this issue in the future.

Keywords :Tax law, international tax law, international double- taxation, tax credut, Dutch sandwich, avoidance of tax, international tax avoidance, abuse of right

目 次
壹、緒論：問題之提出
貳、國際租稅條約作為國際租稅法之法源
一、概說：雙重課稅之難以避免
二、OECD防杜雙重課稅租稅公約標準條款
三、聯合國防杜雙重課稅協定範本
四、小結：國際租稅條約之普遍化
參、納稅義務人之租稅條約地位及其濫用之可能
一、概說 ：有權利，難免有濫用
二、國際租稅之雙重漏課
三、Treaty Shopping
四、小結：國際租稅條約或協定效力之再思考
肆、租稅條約地位濫用之防杜嘗試：以法國中央行政法院近期裁判為例
一、概說：法國法院適用國際條約或協定之基本問題
二、CE 13 Octobre 1999, nº 191191, min.c/ SA Diebold Courtage案
三、CE 29 Décembre 2006, nº 283314, min.c/Sté. Bank of Scotland案
四、法國中央行政法院近期裁判所引發之相關問題
五、小結：國際租稅條約濫用之防杜嘗試
伍、結論