輔仁法學第53期

2016年1月，台灣通過亞洲第一部病人自主權利法（下稱本法），使重症病人對於善終的追求，具有法律的依據。具體來說，成年人可以預立醫療決定，如果未來不幸成為末期病人、植物人、極重度失智、不可逆的昏迷狀態，或以當前醫療水準無法醫治的痛苦疾病時，且經醫師專業判斷認定，則可以依據預立醫療決定，按照病人的意願，終止、撤除或不施行維持生命的醫療或灌食。
本文探討，病人自主權利法在實踐上可能發生的刑事責任。醫師依照合法的程序，完成病人的意願，放棄醫療，使病人得到善終，可能構成刑法第275條受囑託殺人的構成要件，但是本法於第14條第5項規定：「不負刑事責任」；第14條第3項規定：「得不施行」，皆得作為免除醫師刑事責任的依據，而可以排除違法性。因為行為是否違法，必須從整體的法律秩序判斷。本法既然允許醫師在法定程序下醫療或不醫療，而且規定醫師不負刑事責任，醫師的行為即不違法，這是典型的「依法令的行為」，然而，對於原本仍有救助可能的生命，為何能夠立法同意醫師放棄，應有加以深究的必要。本法雖然要於2019年方才施行，在施行前必須審慎思量，希望本法正式上路時，真正能為醫病取得雙贏。

關鍵詞：病人自主、預立醫療決定、善終、安樂死、刑事責任

On January 2016, the first Patient Autonomy Act (the Act) in Asia has been passed in Taiwan, which allows critical illness patients to have legal ground pursuing good death. Specifically, an adult have a right to make Advanced Directives. If the adult who makes Advanced Directives unfortunately becomes a terminal illness patient, a resident with persistent vegetative state, a patient with profound Neurocognitive Disorder, a patient in irreversible coma, or a patient suffers from painful disease that cannot be cured under current medical standard, a doctor may terminate, withdraw, or not apply his Life-sustaining Treatment or feeding according to the will of the patient after the professional judgement by the doctor.
This Article makes an approach to criminal liability that might be occurred after the Act put into practice. A doctor who abandons medical treatment to accomplish the patient's will of good death according to the legal process may fulfill the legal elements of the offense of entrusted murder prescribed in Article 275 of Criminal Code. Nevertheless, in compliance with the provision of Article 14 section 5 of the Act, the doctor in former situation “does not bear criminal liability,” meanwhile the doctor in later situation “may not apply it” in compliance with the provision of Article 14 section 3 of the Act. Both two sections exempt the doctors from criminal liability as the grounds of legal justification. That is because whether the conduct is illegal, it is judged from the entire order of laws. Since the Act exempts the doctor who enact or not according to the legal process from criminal liability and the conduct of the doctor is not illegal, this is a typical kind of “conduct performed in accordance with law or order.” However, for those lives with possibilities to be rescued originally, it needs to go further into that why can we make laws allow doctors to abandon such medical treatments. The Act is still necessary to be deliberated profoundly before it taking effect in 2019, and hopefully, it would really achieve win-win outcome for the patient and the doctor then.

Keywords: Patient Autonomy, Advanced Directive (AD), Good Death, Euthanasia, Criminal Liability

目次
壹、前言
貳、病人預立醫療決定的法定程序
一、從醫學專業認定權能主體
二、預立醫療決定的程序保障
參、醫師執行預立醫療決定的刑法免責依據
一、病人自主權是醫師免責的法理
二、醫師不負刑事責任的意義
肆、醫師執行預立醫療決定的潛在風險
一、輕率執行預立醫療決定
二、拒絕執行預立醫療決定
參、結語

國際區域經濟整合日趨熱絡，我國近年亦積極爭取加入如跨太平洋夥伴協定（TPP）的國際經貿協定。TPP下的投保專章除制訂跨國投資之實體規範以外，其投資人對地主國爭端解決（ISDS）機制允許投資人依據解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約（ICSID公約）向國際投資爭端解決中心（ICSID）提交仲裁，或依據ICSID Additional Facility Rules進行仲裁，或依循聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則（UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules）或於其他經當事人同意之仲裁機構進行仲裁。為強化仲裁程序之正當性，保障公共利益與利害關係人之權益，投資人對地主國仲裁程序有透明化之必要。此透明化原則已漸次納入相關國際協定之規範。增進仲裁程序透明化涉及仲裁資訊之公開與公眾取得，仲裁聽審程序的公開，非爭端當事人之第三方參與程序表達意見，以及仲裁判斷內容之公開等措施。TPP投保專章因應仲裁程序透明化之相關規範為何，過去實務案例上如何落實適用此等規範，有探究之必要。

關鍵字：跨太平洋夥伴協定、投資人對地主國爭端解決、解決國家與他國國民間投資爭端公約、國際投資爭端解決中心、聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則、透明化

In light of the growth in regional economy integration, Taiwan has endeavored to participate in FTAs such as the TPP. The investment chapter of the TPP includes not only provisions of substantive treatments towards investment, but also ISDS mechanisms. TPP's ISDS mechanisms allow an investor to request for arbitration against a host state in accordance with ICSID Convention art. 25(1) or ICSID Additional Facility Rules, or alternatively commence arbitral proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. In order to enhance legitimacy of the arbitration procedures, as well as to protect public interests and public policy, there is the need for transparency in the proceedings of investor-state arbitration. The principle of transparency has been gradually integrated into relevant international agreements. The reinforcement of transparency in arbitral proceedings involves public access to arbitration information and open hearing, third party's submission of opinions in arbitral proceedings, and the publication of arbitral awards. What exactly are the rules concerning transparency under the TPP's ISDS provisions? How might they be implemented in practice as guided by past cases? These issues deserve further study and analysis.

Keywords: TPP、ISDS、ICSID Convention、ICSID、UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, transparency

目次
壹、前言
貳、投資人對地主國仲裁機制透明化的發展趨勢
參、增進投資人對地主國仲裁機制透明化之主要方案
一、公眾對仲裁案件相關資訊與文件之取得
（一）NAFTA架構下的仲裁資訊公開
（二）ICSID架構下的仲裁資訊公開
（三）UNCITRAL架構下的仲裁資訊公開
二、公開聽審程序
（一）NAFTA架構下的公開聽審
（二）ICSID架構下的公開聽審
（三）UNCITRAL架構下的公開聽審
三、第三方書面意見之提交
（一）NAFTA架構下的第三方書面意見提交
（二）ICSID架構下的第三方書面意見提交
（三）UNCITRAL架構下的第三方書面意見提交
肆、TPP架構下投資人對地主國仲裁機制的透明化規範
一、TPP投保專章本身關於仲裁程序透明化的直接規範
（一）關於仲裁資訊的公開
（二）關於聽審程序的公開
（三）關於第三方提交書面意見
二、TPP投保專章之仲裁程序透明化規範的適用位階問題
伍、結論

收養制度受到文化和國籍因素影響，而台灣的歷史特殊經歷使得這塊土地的收養制度是錯綜複雜。基此法律制度演變複雜下，對台灣人民權益具有重大且深遠影響。
在台灣近代收養制度上，隨著前述統治政權更迭，可概分為前清時期、日治時期及光復後時期。然而，台灣人民在不同政權下收養制度於社會中運行，似乎無法馬上無縫接軌，而這樣裂縫呈現在社會生活裡及民事收養關係存否爭議案件中。本文先歸納整理前清、日治及光復後三時期相關收養制度規定及社會習慣後，進而，在司法院法學資料庫裡搜尋到四件具代表性案件（收養行為發生在光復後至民國74年6月5日修法前），呈現出承辦各審法官對民國74年6月5日修法前民法第1079條但書「自幼撫養為子女」要件判斷標準及立法精神，似乎存有相異判斷標準，本文將以案件為中心歸納各承審法官見解，並整理舊法時期學者針對該條但書見解，最後，本文提出建議。期望本文對此議題所作之研究分析，對於實務發生之問題，能具有進一步釐清作用，並能供裁判實務之參考。

關鍵詞：收養制度、親子關係、子女最佳利益、契約、收養無效

Adoption system always is influenced by cultures and countries, so Taiwan’s adoption system is very complex and is confused by the land’s special historical experience. Recently, our adoptive laws are influenced by Japanese and traditional Qing dynasty. The adoptive system transformation is complex and unintelligible. Therefore, it put an huge effect on people and society.
Consequently, the adoption law in Taiwan always changes in modern time, which is made by the inferior aforementioned reasons. The adoption system in Taiwan can be divided into three stages, the early Qing Dynasty, Japanese colonization, and post-retrocession, by the regime change. However, it was difficult for the adoption system to make immediate and smooth transition under the different regimes. The gap often is present in the society and in disputes over civil adoptive relationships. This study first summarizes applicable requirements of the adoption system and social customs during the three stages. Then, the four symbolic cases retrieved from the database of the Judicial Yuan, all cases with adoptive relationships occurring after Taiwan retrocession and before the amendment on June 05, 1985, were used to show the differences in the determination criteria adopted by judges. The phenomenon shows the judges with different criteria on the one hand, and helps us to summarize in charge of respective trials for “adoption since early childhood”, a proviso to Article 1079 of the Civil Code before the amendment on June 5, 1985. Interpretations of the cases by the judges and those of the proviso by scholars during the old legislation period are summarized in this study, with suggestions provided at the end of this study. I hope that we can give some basis and suggestions through this research and cases’ summation, which helps judges and legislators clarify the disputes in the cases of upbringing since children in the future.

Keywords: Adoption System, Parent-Child Relationship, Children’s Best Interests, Contract, Adoption Invalid.

目次
壹、問題提出
貳、台灣收養制度變遷
一、概說
二、台灣光復時期前收養要件之探討
（一）實質要件
（二）形式要件
三、台灣光復後至民國74年6月5日修正前收養要件之探討
（一）實質要件
（二）形式要件
四、光復前後台灣收養規定之差異
五、當事人未立收養書面時收養合意之判斷
參、收養行為發生在民國74年修法前之四個案件觀察歸納
一、第1案件（羅○源生父死後認領案）
（一）事實經過
（二）歷審法院就「自幼撫養為子女」判斷
二、第2案件（林○祥確認親子關係存否案）
（一）事實經過
（二）歷審法院就「自幼撫養為子女」判斷
三、第3案件（周○旺、陳○貴請求確認收養關係成立案）
（一）事實經過
（二）歷審法院就「自幼撫養為子女」判斷
四、第4案件（連○安、連○君、連○芬及連○德反請求確認收養關係存在案）
（一）事實經過
（二）歷審法院就「自幼撫養為子女」判斷
肆、本文評釋
一、學者對民法第1079條但書「自幼撫養為子女」收養關係之判斷
二、民國74年6月修法前台灣地方慣習，須列入收養契約當事人「收養真意」判斷考量
三、當時收養制度國際趨勢
四、親屬編規定原則上不溯既往
五、最高法院有統一法律見解的作為義務
六、本文認為民國74年修法前民法第1079條但書判斷基準
（一）第1案件（羅○源生父死後認領案）
（二）第2案件（林○祥確認親子關係存否案）
（三）第3案件（周○旺、陳○貴請求確認收養關係成立案）
（四）第4案件（連○安、連○君、連○芬及連○德確認收養關係存在案）

本論文目的在於探討德國知名法學者Hermann Heller（1891-1933）對於平等原則（包含形式平等與實質平等）的看法，並且進一步分析Heller如何推導出社會國以及社會民主對於平等原則實踐的重要性。本文試圖指出，Heller的法理論要求實證法律必須要符合社會的倫理性法原則才能獲得正確性並在社會上產生實效，但是，倫理性的法原則也必須要透過國家才能確定其內容如何能具體化。為了避免國家任意的具體化倫理性法原則，必須要透過社會民主，讓所有的不同階級都能加入國家實證法律的制定過程，才能確保法律能真正的落實倫理性法原則的要求。也就是說，透過社會民主而實踐的實質平等，是保證法律之前人人平等的形式平等，能真的是依據倫理性法原則而具體化的實證法律來要求人民遵守法律，也才能真正的落實平等原則。本文進一步以Heller對於基本權理論與司法違憲審查的看法，來說明Heller實質平等理論對其法政理論的具體影響。最後則說明了Heller的實質平等理論對於當代的意義。

關鍵詞：社會法治國、實質平等、形式平等、社會民主、基本權理論、司法違憲審查

This paper tries to discuss the conception of formal equality and material equality in the famous Germany jurist Hermann Heller’s theory, also will explore the relationship of the principle of equality and the idea of social state in Heller’s legal and state theory. This paper tries to point out, that Heller criticizes the deficiency of liberal idea of rule of law (formal equality), because it neglects the legal standards which judge the equal/unequal treatments of government actions may be themselves unequal (in other words, these legal standards should not be justified by the standards of material equality).
According to Heller's theory of social state, the rightness of legal sentences must be comply the ethical principles of law. But the ethical principles of law can be correctly concretized as the positive statute in the social state. Only in the process of social democracy, all of the different classes in the society can patriciate the process of legislation in the parliament, therefore the different concept of ethical principles of law can be taken into account in the legislative process. If so, the positive statutes which enacted by the legislative process in social state should be the correct and proper standards of formal equality, because they can accord with the conception of material equality in Heller's theory.

Keywords: Socialist idea of Rule of Law, Material Conception of Equality, Formal Conception of Equality, Social Democracy, Theory of basic Rights, Judicial Review

目次
壹、前言：社會法治國與平等原則的標準
貳、為什麼是社會法治國？國家學觀點的思考
參、社會法治國與社會民主下的實質平等觀：Heller的實質平等理論
一、Heller對形式平等與實質平等的區分
二、Heller實質平等理論在威瑪時代的具體運用： 基本權拘束力與司法違憲審查的問題
肆、Heller實質平等理論的時代侷限以及其對當代的積極意義
伍、結論：從平等的自由到自由的平等