輔仁法學第58期

我國學說實務在探討因陳述所生之證券責任時，並未意識到意見表達與事實表述之區別，向來的探討焦點亦集中在後者身上。藉由美國聯邦最高法院作成Omnicare一案之契機，本文借助彼邦之案例法發展與學說討論，觀察意見表達之證券責任相關議題，並探討該案於美國言論自由之強迫商業言論脈絡下的意涵，以及監督義務與該等證券責任之交集與相互影響關係。在美國法的基礎上，本文再由我國法整體體系、證交法相關規定文義、法制淵源及實務見解等面向，主張在我國證交法相關規定下，應有就意見表達另行架構其體系與責任要件之必要，而進一步提出三種意見表達之證券責任態樣及其構成要件，並檢討該等責任於我國言論自由下之妥適性，以及意見表達責任與內控制度搭配下，得於我國公司治理發揮之功能。

關鍵詞：證券詐欺、意見表達、事實表述、Omnicare、商業言論、強迫言論、浮誇抗辯、展望性陳述、監督義務、內控制度

While discussing the security liability resulting from the statement, scholars and practitioners in Taiwan are not aware of the distinction between the statement of fact and statement of opinion, and mostly focus on the former. Beginning from the Omnicare opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court, the article reviews the case laws and academic discussions in the U.S. in the context of securities liability, and then explores the implication of Omnicare under the lens of compelled commercial speech on the basis of Central Hudson and Zauderer and looks at the interaction between the Omnicare liability and the fiduciary duty of oversight, observing how the securities liability could promote the development of the fiduciary duty.
Based on the research on the U.S. law, this article turns to the analysis of Taiwan law. From the holistic review of the legal system in Taiwan, literal reading of the Taiwan Securities and Exchange Act, the source of legal transplant of the relevant provisions therein as well as their application under current practice, this article argues that the liability for statement of opinion should be treated differently. Then this article articulates the elements for the statement of opinion to be held liable under the Taiwan Securities and Exchange Act, its constitutionality under the freedom of speech and its application in the form of internal control statement liability to promote the soundness of corporate governance of Taiwan companies.

Keywords: Securities Fraud, Statement of Opinion, Statement of Fact, Omnicare, Commercial Speech, Compelled Speech, Puffery, Forward-looking Statement, Duty of Oversight, Internal Control System

目次
壹、前言
貳、美國法上之討論
一、意見表達作為不實陳述之可訴性
（一）Virginia Bankshares
（二）Omnicare
1、多數意見
2、Scalia大法官協同意見
二、 意見表達與事實表述之區別
（一）法院案例
（二）侵權行為法整編
（三）學說見解
1、侵權行為法
2、證券責任
三、 意見表達責任之特殊性
（一）主觀要件之帶入及提高
（二）重大性之判斷
1、一般標準
2、浮誇抗辯
3、展望性陳述之特別規定
四、受託義務與意見表達責任之交集
（一）問題之脈絡：歸屬於公司認知之成員範圍
（二）德拉瓦州案例法
（三）Omnicare的影響
五、言論自由面向之觀察
（一）商業言論之限制與強迫提出
（二）Omnicare於言論自由面向下之解讀
參、我國法下之檢討
一、意見表達需另行架構其責任體系
（一）我國法已有區分事實與意見，而為不同處理者
（二）證交法相關規定隱含意見與事實之別，然未獲實務注意
（三）證交法相關規定之法制淵源支持意見與事實之區別
（四）現行證交法之解釋適用有待完善
二、意見表達責任之檢討
（一）意見表達之內涵及其類型
（二）意見表達與軟資訊的關係
（三）意見表達責任之建構
1、責任態樣
2、主觀要件之變化
3、重大性之判斷
（四）意見表達責任之價值判斷
三、意見表達責任之憲法意涵
四、意見表達責任之公司治理功能
（一）內部制度控制聲明書責任之檢討
（二）證券責任與受託義務之交錯
肆、結論

我國破產法採取屬地主義而無國際破產法制，已落後日本、南韓甚多。政府於2016年提出破產法全面修正案，包含了國際債務清理法制，意義重大。本文針對草案進行探討，結論可舉下面數點：（1）在倒產抵觸法之部分，我國法草案規定仿自德國倒產法。因此關於這些條文之意義旨趣以及其解釋適用應可適度參考德國法。（2）草案第304條雖規定外國倒產程序之效力依該外國法，復設第306至308條之例外，但因起草過程之討論未臻詳盡，故不宜解釋為關於其他事項係全面承認外國倒產程序法之效力。（3）關於抵銷之準據法，草案與我國國際私法通說不同，也與德國法規定有異。由於起草過程並無實質討論，故宜解為法有不備或應進行限縮解釋，以免造成不合理後果。（4）草案就外國倒產程序之承認，未區別「主程序」與「從程序」，此可能在程序競合時造成處理上之困難，或造成不合理結果，立法者宜再進行增修。（5）草案之國際倒產規定似是混合了日本法與德國法之規範模式。不過，日本法與德國法之規範模式有根本上之不同，我國法草案各自擷取了日本法與德國法的部分要素，將來能否順利運作，不無疑慮；法院宜避免說文解字或考據訓詁式的適用，而應力求在個案獲得妥當結果。

關鍵詞：涉外倒產、債務清理程序、倒產國際私法、破產法、國際破產法

The present bankruptcy law in Formosa=Taiwan was enacted in 1935 and contains no international insolvency regulations. In 2016 a draft bill of new Insolvency Law was sent from the Government (Executive Yuan) to the Parliament (Legislative Yuan), which contains new provisions of international insolvency law. This article analysis the draft law, after introducing the present situation of international insolvency law in Formosa. The author observes that the new draft bill on international insolvency law has substantially referred to Japanese law and German law, its 3 articles on conflict of laws concerning insolvency are made in imitation of German law. However, the draft bill has some problems that need to be addressed. The author discusses those issues. Concerning the provisions in the draft bill relating to parallel insolvent procedures, the author argues that the draft bill has some bugs, and might be difficult to understand and to implement. A further discussion regarding the regulation model is therefore recommended.

Keywords: International Insolvency Law, International Bankruptcy Law, Insolvency Conflict of Laws, Parallel Insolvency Procedures

目次
壹、前言
貳、我國倒產法制之現狀
一、法制概況
二、低利用率之可能原因
（一）法院之消極傾向
（二）對債權人之誘因不足
參、我國國際倒產制度之現狀
一、不承認外國倒產程序
二、外國倒產程序管理人之提訴權限
三、海外資產不列入破產財團
肆、草案之概要與檢討
一、承認之程序及其效果
（一）草案之規定
（二）與日本法之異同
（三）與德國法之比較
1、自動承認vs裁定承認
2、外國倒產程序效力承認之例外
3、綜合考察
二、内外平行倒產之處理
伍、結語

在德國憲法學發展史上，Carl Schmitt的學說無疑佔有舉足輕重的地位。他不但是威瑪共和時期公法學界的代表性人物，在國際上更是法政學界長久以來十分熱門的研究對象。然而，有鑑於Schmitt明確支持納粹政權的意識形態立場，當代德國憲法學界的主流，並不積極耙梳Schmitt的憲法理論與當代德國憲法學發展取向的關連。本文的主要目的，在於透過對戰後至今德國憲法學發展軌跡的觀察與分析，指出當代德國憲法學究竟如何、或者在何等意義上，反映了Schmitt的思想特質，而如此之反映又預示了什麼樣的發展前景。為了清楚凸顯Schmitt對當代發展之影響具有一定程度的普遍性，而且源遠流長，本文將選擇鎖定在二次戰後德國憲法學界主流見解對「法」與「政治」二者關係的看待方式上，試圖透過對主流見解所持「法與政治二元論」之基本立場，以及這個基本立場在不同發展階段各種具體呈現方式的觀察，指出主流見解如何繼承了Schmitt對「法」與「政治」二者關係的看法，又如何因此而讓Schmitt的憲法理論繼續伴隨著基本法秩序的發展，歷久彌新。

關鍵詞：德國憲法學、威瑪共和、基本法秩序、法與政治二元論、政治法治化、政治形成空間、憲法同一性

Carl Schmitt’s constitutional thought has undoubtedly played a decisive role for the development of German constitutional jurisprudence. However, due to his ideological support for the Nazi regime, the German mainstream has not paid much attention on the intellectual connection between Schmitt’s constitutional theory and the mainstream approach of the development of German constitutional law since World War II. Through observing and analyzing the postwar developments of German constitutional law in theory and practice, this article aims to illustrate how the contemporary German constitutional jurisprudence has inherited the characteristics of Schmitt’s constitutional thoughts, and what the legacy of Schmitt indicates. In particular, it attempts to show how and in what sense the mainstream view on the dichotomy of law and politics has reflected Schmitt’s perspective on the relationship between law and politics, and consequently, how Schmitt’s unique approach to constitutional law continues to influence the development of German constitutional theory and jurisprudence.

Keywords: German Constitutional Jurisprudence, Weimar Republic, Constitutional Order of German Basic Law, Dichotomy of Law and Politics, Juridification of Politics (Verrechtlichung der Politik), Political Discretion (politischer Gestaltungsspielraum), Constitutional Identity

目次
壹、前言
貳、二次戰後的德國憲法學主流見解如何看待法與政治的關係？
一、第一階段─政治法治化：記取納粹歷史教訓的德國基本法秩序與德國憲法學
二、第二階段─政治形成空間：憲法學界對「政治法治化」的省思與反動
三、第三階段─憲法同一性：憲法學界對歐洲整合趨勢的回應
參、從「法與政治的二元對立」探尋Schmitt的思想傳承
一、「政治法治化」的訴求與Schmitt思想的關連
二、「政治形成空間」的訴求與Schmitt思想的關連
三、「憲法同一性」的訴求與Schmitt思想的關連
肆、結語：Schmitt（還）是德國憲法學的禁忌嗎？

所謂「營救式刑求」，通常係指為拯救一人或多人之生命，而對他人施加刑求以獲取被害人所在地或炸彈設置地等相關情報之行為。此種行為，即使目的係為了營救他人，仍因其涉及「刑求」之禁忌而長年來成為法學界極度爭議之問題。特別是2001年的911攻擊事件，開啟了美國政府的「反恐戰爭」，並迫使美國政府重新思考「刑求」在其反恐戰爭中之地位以及在其現有法律制度下正當化此行為之可能。
在此一背景下，美國司法部的法律顧問局即在其2004年被公開的「Bybee Memo」中，提出了以英美刑法中的「必要性抗辯」來正當化美國執法人員為反恐而可能採取的刑求行為。英美刑法中之必要性抗辯，類似於我國刑法中緊急避難之概念。該抗辯允許行為人為了避免一個較為嚴重的損害的發生，而選擇從事一個損害較為輕微的違法行為。行為人若於其案件中成功的主張了必要性抗辯，則其將不需為其所為之犯罪行為負責。必要性抗辯於1800年代早期即曾於英美文獻中被拿來作為營救式刑求典型案例之假想討論，後更於Bybee Memo中直接被引用作為美國官方正當化刑求之理由之一。然英美刑法中之必要性抗辯到底可不可以適用於營救式刑求？本文即將以此為命題，探討營救式刑求在美國法中之地位，並就英美刑法中之必要性抗辯於營救式刑求之適用加以分析討論。

關鍵詞：刑求、營救式刑求、必要性抗辯、緊急避難、利益權衡

For centuries, the unequivocal position of the civilized world has been that torture is an abomination, one of the worst violations imaginable of human dignity. Many international agreements prohibit the use of torture in any circumstance. However, are there any circumstances in which a government would be justified in employing torture? If torture were permitted in such situation, how should the law treat the tortures? The famous ticking time-bomb cases invite us to imagine a scenario wherein the torture of one guilty terrorist will lead to the acquisition of information that can be used to save the lives of many innocents. The principal moral question suggested by these cases is whether one harm can be affected such that a worse one is not. While the debate of such cases can date back to the early 1800s, the September 11 attacks in the United States sparked the debate again.
After the September 11, the Bush administration was forced to face this difficult question, and the result is a memo prepared by the Justice Department’s office of Legal Counsel. The memo had been known as the “torture memo” which suggest that criminal law defense of necessity could justify interrogation methods, probably include torture, needed to elicit information to prevent a direct and imminent threat to the U.S.
Under the common law, the necessity defense exculpates an actor for conduct that would otherwise be a crime when the actor engages in the conduct in order to prevent something worse from occurring. The memo suggest that the necessity defense will justify a defendant in violation of law when he or she engages in conduct that the actor “believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another,” provided that the “harm or evil” trying to avoid is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged. This memo therefore arose controversy among experts in criminal, international, and constitutional law, and forces us to think afresh about the legal prohibition of torture and the justification and purpose of criminal necessity defense. This article will therefore explore the absolute character of the legal and moral prohibitions on torture, and further discuss whether the criminal necessity defense can serve as a justification for torture.

Keywords: Torture, Necessity Defense, Torture Memo, U.N. Convention Against Torture, Bybee Memo, the War on Terror

目次
壹、前言
貳、何謂營救式刑求
一、刑求之定義
二、營救式刑求之情境
參、英美法中之營救式刑求
一、刑求於美國法中之定位
（一）國際條約於美國之適用
（二）聯邦法禁止刑求之規定
二、恐怖主義威脅下之營救式刑求：Torture Memo
三、必要性抗辯（Necessity）與營救式刑求
（一）英美刑法中之必要性抗辯
（二）必要性抗辯於營救式刑求之適用
肆、結論