輔仁法學第52期
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 從兩人權公約檢視原住民狩獵權 | 鄭川如 |
台灣的原住民族，居住在台灣已有五、六千年的歷史，過去數百、數千年來一直是過著狩獵（或捕魚）以及游、火耕等與土地資源利用高度相關聯的自給自足的生活。然而，這樣的生活方式，已在過去一百年來，因為外來統治者的強權佔領土地、支配、與同化融合政策而逐漸消失。過去四、五十年來，原住民狩獵活動被統治者嚴格限制與管制，違反法令者將遭刑事追訴或行政處罰。然而，這些法令仍然嚇阻不了那些視山林生活為其信仰的部落族人。2009 年兩人權公約內國法化後，人權公約已經成為憲法之下其他法律之上關於人權之最高法源依據，本文嘗試從兩人權公約的角度，探討原住民狩獵權的具體權利內涵，並試著從兩人權公約的標準檢視台灣關於原住民狩獵權的相關法制。本文發現，政府必須修改相關法令與規章，以符合兩人權公約之基本要求。
關鍵詞：原住民、兩人權公約、公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利國際公約、狩獵權、文化權
The indigenous peoples of Taiwan have been living in Taiwan for overfive thousand years. For the past few millenniums, they have been making living by hunting, fishing, and cultivating, which associated highly with their land. However, for the past one hundred years, the traditional territories have been occupied by the outside rulers, and the indigenous peoples’ way of living have been strictly restrain by them so that the indigenous peoples can no longer go hunting as freely as they want. Since 1945, penalties have been laid upon those who disobeyed the hunting regulations. Nevertheless, these penalties do not scare away the tribal people who see hunting way of life as their belief. In 2009, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan passed “The Enforcement Act of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” As the two human right covenants become effective laws in Taiwan, the Taiwanese government must comply with it. This paper tries to analyze the actual connotation of hunting rights within the two human right covenants, and to examine Taiwan’s relative laws in accordance with these laws. Finally, this paper finds that the Taiwanese government needs to rectify relative laws and regulations to conform with the two human rights covenants.
Keywords: Indigenous People, Two Human Rights Covenants, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Hunting Right, Cultural Right
關鍵詞：原住民、兩人權公約、公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利國際公約、狩獵權、文化權
The indigenous peoples of Taiwan have been living in Taiwan for overfive thousand years. For the past few millenniums, they have been making living by hunting, fishing, and cultivating, which associated highly with their land. However, for the past one hundred years, the traditional territories have been occupied by the outside rulers, and the indigenous peoples’ way of living have been strictly restrain by them so that the indigenous peoples can no longer go hunting as freely as they want. Since 1945, penalties have been laid upon those who disobeyed the hunting regulations. Nevertheless, these penalties do not scare away the tribal people who see hunting way of life as their belief. In 2009, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan passed “The Enforcement Act of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” As the two human right covenants become effective laws in Taiwan, the Taiwanese government must comply with it. This paper tries to analyze the actual connotation of hunting rights within the two human right covenants, and to examine Taiwan’s relative laws in accordance with these laws. Finally, this paper finds that the Taiwanese government needs to rectify relative laws and regulations to conform with the two human rights covenants.
Keywords: Indigenous People, Two Human Rights Covenants, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Hunting Right, Cultural Right
目次
壹、前言
貳、台灣原住民狩獵權簡介
一、原住民族自治時期（自古以來-1910s）
二、日治時期（1910s-1945）
三、國治時期（1945-迄今）
（一） 狩獵管制時期（1945-1972.10）
（二） 全面禁獵時期（1972.10-1978.11.16）
（三） 全面禁獵時期（續）＆狩獵犯罪化時期（1978.11.17-2004）
（四） 開放基於傳統文化、祭儀、自用為目的的狩獵（2004-迄今）
參、兩人權公約中原住民狩獵權之法源與內涵
一、兩人權公約中原住民狩獵權的法源
（一） ICESCR 第15 條第1 項（a）款之「人人有權參與文化生活」
（二） ICCPR 第27 條「少數民族之文化權」
二、兩人權公約中原住民狩獵權的內涵
（一） 個人權＆集體權
（二） 文化活動（文化權）＆經濟活動（維生方式）
（三） 傳統狩獵方式＆現代狩獵方式
（四） 私有土地＆國有土地
（五） 消極的防禦權＆積極的保護措施
（六） 國家（政府）對個人狩獵的限制必須合理且客觀，且需為了全體原住民族的永續發展與福祉
三、小結
肆、原住民狩獵相關法令政策之評析與建議
一、從兩人權公約檢視原住民狩獵權—台灣的相關法令是否違反二人權公約？
（一） 關於狩獵目的
（二） 關於獵場（狩獵區域）
（三） 關於獵物
（四） 關於狩獵工具
二、建議
伍、結語
壹、前言
貳、台灣原住民狩獵權簡介
一、原住民族自治時期（自古以來-1910s）
二、日治時期（1910s-1945）
三、國治時期（1945-迄今）
（一） 狩獵管制時期（1945-1972.10）
（二） 全面禁獵時期（1972.10-1978.11.16）
（三） 全面禁獵時期（續）＆狩獵犯罪化時期（1978.11.17-2004）
（四） 開放基於傳統文化、祭儀、自用為目的的狩獵（2004-迄今）
參、兩人權公約中原住民狩獵權之法源與內涵
一、兩人權公約中原住民狩獵權的法源
（一） ICESCR 第15 條第1 項（a）款之「人人有權參與文化生活」
（二） ICCPR 第27 條「少數民族之文化權」
二、兩人權公約中原住民狩獵權的內涵
（一） 個人權＆集體權
（二） 文化活動（文化權）＆經濟活動（維生方式）
（三） 傳統狩獵方式＆現代狩獵方式
（四） 私有土地＆國有土地
（五） 消極的防禦權＆積極的保護措施
（六） 國家（政府）對個人狩獵的限制必須合理且客觀，且需為了全體原住民族的永續發展與福祉
三、小結
肆、原住民狩獵相關法令政策之評析與建議
一、從兩人權公約檢視原住民狩獵權—台灣的相關法令是否違反二人權公約？
（一） 關於狩獵目的
（二） 關於獵場（狩獵區域）
（三） 關於獵物
（四） 關於狩獵工具
二、建議
伍、結語
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 共有不動產之出賣與他共有人之先買權 | 黃健彰 |
先買權的制度運作是實務上重要問題，不過，既有相關學說研究仍有不足。例如「部分共有人以多數決出賣不動產時，他共有人之先買權」的議題，即有許多爭議待釐清，且內政部目前研商的土地法部分條文修正草案中，該先買權規定是修正的重點之一。本文先釐清土地法第三十四條之一第一項及第四項的規範意旨，再依序探討部分共有人以多數決出賣不動產時，他共有人之先買權賦予的理由及標的。本文著重於不動產的有效利用與相關當事人的利益衡量、成本效益分析，就既有的學說、實務見解及修正草案予以回應，並提出解釋論與立法論上的建議。
本文以為，部分共有人以多數決出賣共有不動產時，他共有人有先買權，其先買權的標的為同意出賣之共有人的應有部分；在部分共有人以客觀上顯不相當對價而多數決出賣不動產的情形，如他共有人死亡，繼承人有無不明，則他共有人的遺產管理人得主張先買權。
關鍵詞：優先購買權、優先承買權、先買權、共有、土地法、多數決
The system of the right of first refusal is an important issue in practice. However, the existing studies are insufficient. For example, there are controversies regarding “a right of first refusal when the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate”. Among the draft amendment on partial articles of Land Act discussed in the Ministry of the Interior now, such right of first refusal is one of the key points. First of all, this study clarifies the purposes of the first and the fourth paragraphs of Article 34-1 of the Land Act. This study then explores the reason and the object of the right of first refusal in turn when the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate. This study emphasizes effective utilization of the real estate and the interests of the concerned parties and stresses on the cost-benefit analysis. This study discusses the existing doctrine, practice, and the draft amendment and makes some propositions in explanation and legislation.
This study holds that there is a right of first refusal when the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate and the objects are the shares of the co-owners who agree to sell. When the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate for improper value obviously and the other co-owners were died, the manager for the other co-owner’s property may claim a right of first refusal if it is not clear whether or not there is an heir.
Keywords: Preemption, Right of First Refusal, Option of First Refusal, Co-ownership, Land Act, Majority Rule
本文以為，部分共有人以多數決出賣共有不動產時，他共有人有先買權，其先買權的標的為同意出賣之共有人的應有部分；在部分共有人以客觀上顯不相當對價而多數決出賣不動產的情形，如他共有人死亡，繼承人有無不明，則他共有人的遺產管理人得主張先買權。
關鍵詞：優先購買權、優先承買權、先買權、共有、土地法、多數決
The system of the right of first refusal is an important issue in practice. However, the existing studies are insufficient. For example, there are controversies regarding “a right of first refusal when the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate”. Among the draft amendment on partial articles of Land Act discussed in the Ministry of the Interior now, such right of first refusal is one of the key points. First of all, this study clarifies the purposes of the first and the fourth paragraphs of Article 34-1 of the Land Act. This study then explores the reason and the object of the right of first refusal in turn when the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate. This study emphasizes effective utilization of the real estate and the interests of the concerned parties and stresses on the cost-benefit analysis. This study discusses the existing doctrine, practice, and the draft amendment and makes some propositions in explanation and legislation.
This study holds that there is a right of first refusal when the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate and the objects are the shares of the co-owners who agree to sell. When the majority of the co-owners sell the real estate for improper value obviously and the other co-owners were died, the manager for the other co-owner’s property may claim a right of first refusal if it is not clear whether or not there is an heir.
Keywords: Preemption, Right of First Refusal, Option of First Refusal, Co-ownership, Land Act, Majority Rule
目次
壹、前言
貳、土地法第三十四條之一的規範意旨
一、土地法第三十四條之一第一項的規範意旨
二、土地法第三十四條之一第四項的規範意旨
參、部分共有人以多數決出賣不動產時，他共有人先買權的有無
一、他共有人得否行使先買權
（一）實務、學說見解
（二）本文見解
二、他共有人的遺產管理人得否行使先買權
肆、部分共有人以多數決出賣不動產時，他共有人先買權的標的
一、學說、實務見解
二、本文見解
（一）共有或較多人共有並非必然無效率，且應儘量不使未主張先買權者受不利益
（二）不違反「主張先買權應以同樣條件為之」的意旨
（三）不違反多數說認為「先買權是形成權」的性質
（四）「不得處分權利給自己」並非主要理由
（五）依多數決處分與先買權的一併通知
（六）未符合多數決規定而處分與先買權
（七）多數決出賣公同共有不動產與先買權
伍、結論
壹、前言
貳、土地法第三十四條之一的規範意旨
一、土地法第三十四條之一第一項的規範意旨
二、土地法第三十四條之一第四項的規範意旨
參、部分共有人以多數決出賣不動產時，他共有人先買權的有無
一、他共有人得否行使先買權
（一）實務、學說見解
（二）本文見解
二、他共有人的遺產管理人得否行使先買權
肆、部分共有人以多數決出賣不動產時，他共有人先買權的標的
一、學說、實務見解
二、本文見解
（一）共有或較多人共有並非必然無效率，且應儘量不使未主張先買權者受不利益
（二）不違反「主張先買權應以同樣條件為之」的意旨
（三）不違反多數說認為「先買權是形成權」的性質
（四）「不得處分權利給自己」並非主要理由
（五）依多數決處分與先買權的一併通知
（六）未符合多數決規定而處分與先買權
（七）多數決出賣公同共有不動產與先買權
伍、結論
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 否認子女之訴相關問題之研究 ─評最高法院100年度台上字第370號判決─ | 郭欽銘 |
婚生子女否認之訴與確認親子關係不存在之訴係同一訴訟標的或不同訴訟標的，就實務與理論而言，本有釐清之必要。如夫未提起否認之訴，或雖提起而未受有勝訴之確定判決，則該子女在法律上不能不認為夫之婚生子女，無論何人，皆不得為反對之主張在法解釋上是否合理？我國家事事件法第63條、67條，皆就「否認、確認子女之訴」有明確性規定，且該條之立法是否為司法院大法官釋字第587號解釋文中指出：「法律不許親生父對受推定為他人之婚生子女提起否認之訴，係為避免因訴訟而破壞他人婚姻之安定、家庭之和諧及影響子女受教養之權益，與憲法尚無牴觸。至於將來立法是否有限度放寬此類訴訟，則屬立法形成之自由」。
本文之研究主題「否認子女之訴溯及效之研究–評最高法院100年度台上字第370號判決」在實務與理論上之見解諸多分歧，其問題點為：否認子女之訴未列生母為共同被告之判決效力如何？否認子女之訴於判決確定後是否有溯及效力？否認子女之訴與確認親子關係不存在之訴之區別為何？否認子女之訴於提訴期間經過後，得否再提起確認親子關係不存在之訴？前揭相關法律之問題點，就實務與學術容有不同之見解，故認有立法論與解釋論學術研究價值之必要。
關鍵詞：否認子女之訴、溯及效力、確認親子關係不存在之訴、確認親子關係存在之訴、婚生子女推定、受婚生推定之生父、任意認領、提訴期間
It is necessary to clarify that both denial of legitimacy and the verification of invalid presumption of paternity have the same purpose or not, in terms of practical and theoretical perspectives. Is it justifiable not to against self- assertion of illegitimate child even if a putative father doesn't have an action of denial of legitimacy or hasn't won the court judgment yet? From Article 63 and 67 of the Code of Family Act, there are clear provisions for “Disavowal and Confirm parent-child relationship.” Also, whether the legislative section of the Judicial Interpretation No. 587 word article explained that: “In order to avoid litigation damage to the stability of the marriage of others, family harmony and parenting rights, the biological fathers is prohibited bringing an action for disavowal to the presumption of legitimate children by law. There is no conflict with the Constitution. This is a form of freedom legislation whether legislation will take a limited relaxation of such litigation in the future.”
The topic of this article "Retrospective Effect of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity of the Substantive Study：A Case Analysis on Supreme Court Judgment No.100-Tai-Shan- 370" raises many different opinions theoretically and practically. The problems are: (1) If the mother is not listed as a co-accused, what is the effectiveness of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity? (2) Can Suit for Disavowal of Paternity be traced back the effectiveness after the judgment has been made? (3)What is the distinction between Suit for Disavowal of Paternity and the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship? (4) After the filing of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity during the peremption, should the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship be reconfirmed? Based on above-mentioned issues, it brings up different practical and academic perspectives and needs to have further discussion of legislation and interpretation study on value.
Keywords: Suit for Disavowal of Paternity, Retrospective Effect, Verification of Presumption of Paternity, Presumption of Paternity, Presumption of paternity, Legitimatel Presumed Father, Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity, Peremption
本文之研究主題「否認子女之訴溯及效之研究–評最高法院100年度台上字第370號判決」在實務與理論上之見解諸多分歧，其問題點為：否認子女之訴未列生母為共同被告之判決效力如何？否認子女之訴於判決確定後是否有溯及效力？否認子女之訴與確認親子關係不存在之訴之區別為何？否認子女之訴於提訴期間經過後，得否再提起確認親子關係不存在之訴？前揭相關法律之問題點，就實務與學術容有不同之見解，故認有立法論與解釋論學術研究價值之必要。
關鍵詞：否認子女之訴、溯及效力、確認親子關係不存在之訴、確認親子關係存在之訴、婚生子女推定、受婚生推定之生父、任意認領、提訴期間
It is necessary to clarify that both denial of legitimacy and the verification of invalid presumption of paternity have the same purpose or not, in terms of practical and theoretical perspectives. Is it justifiable not to against self- assertion of illegitimate child even if a putative father doesn't have an action of denial of legitimacy or hasn't won the court judgment yet? From Article 63 and 67 of the Code of Family Act, there are clear provisions for “Disavowal and Confirm parent-child relationship.” Also, whether the legislative section of the Judicial Interpretation No. 587 word article explained that: “In order to avoid litigation damage to the stability of the marriage of others, family harmony and parenting rights, the biological fathers is prohibited bringing an action for disavowal to the presumption of legitimate children by law. There is no conflict with the Constitution. This is a form of freedom legislation whether legislation will take a limited relaxation of such litigation in the future.”
The topic of this article "Retrospective Effect of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity of the Substantive Study：A Case Analysis on Supreme Court Judgment No.100-Tai-Shan- 370" raises many different opinions theoretically and practically. The problems are: (1) If the mother is not listed as a co-accused, what is the effectiveness of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity? (2) Can Suit for Disavowal of Paternity be traced back the effectiveness after the judgment has been made? (3)What is the distinction between Suit for Disavowal of Paternity and the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship? (4) After the filing of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity during the peremption, should the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship be reconfirmed? Based on above-mentioned issues, it brings up different practical and academic perspectives and needs to have further discussion of legislation and interpretation study on value.
Keywords: Suit for Disavowal of Paternity, Retrospective Effect, Verification of Presumption of Paternity, Presumption of Paternity, Presumption of paternity, Legitimatel Presumed Father, Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity, Peremption
目次
壹、問題之提起
貳、否認子女之訴未列生母為共同被告之判決效力
參、否認子女之訴於判決確定後是否有溯及效力
肆、否認子女之訴與確認親子關係不存在之訴之區別
伍、否認子女之訴於提訴期間經過後得否再提起確認親子關係不存在之訴
陸、結論
壹、問題之提起
貳、否認子女之訴未列生母為共同被告之判決效力
參、否認子女之訴於判決確定後是否有溯及效力
肆、否認子女之訴與確認親子關係不存在之訴之區別
伍、否認子女之訴於提訴期間經過後得否再提起確認親子關係不存在之訴
陸、結論
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 以國際法觀點論各國劃設防空識別區之爭議問題 | 范聖孟 |
防空識別區並非一新名詞，自1950年起即由美國聯合加拿大所率先劃設，各國劃設的防空識別區，就國際法而言，雖不禁止但也無明確規範，其與領空、飛航情報區的性質與概念顯未相同，防空識別區主要係一國單方面依自身安全需要所劃定他國航空器進入其領空前的緩衝空域，其目的乃作為預警及攔截具有敵意之航空器，早在中共劃定東海防空識別區之前，全球包括美國、加拿大、挪威、英國、義大利、法國、冰島、日本、韓國、菲律賓、越南及我國等二十餘國劃定防空識別區，歷年各國所劃定之範圍多不受其他國家所承認，對於重疊部分多以透過協商或外交宣示方式處理，防空識別區重疊問題的解決植基於領土爭議的釐清，除非領土爭議先行獲得解決，否則重疊問題仍難突破，而其所衍生的國際飛航安全與區域和平亦難期保障。
關鍵詞：國際法、防空識別區、飛航情報區、領空、禁航區、飛越自由、預防性自衛、攔截、芝加哥公約、習慣國際法
The Air Defense Identification Zone（ADIZ）is not a new concept. It was first established by the United States in 1950 when it created a joint North American ADIZ with Canada. There are many countries operating ADIZs and such zones are not prohibited by international law, in fact, it has no explicit basis at all in international law. ADIZ is quite different from territorial airspace and flight information region（FIR） in concept of legal. It is unilaterally set up by State for the purpose of protecting its self by means of an early warning or intercept potentially unfriendly aircraft. It's essentially a buffer zone outside a country's sovereign airspace. There are about 20 nations such as United States, Canada, Norway, the UK, Italy, France, Iceland, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam that have established ADIZs before PRC claims in November 2013. Most of the overlapping ADIZs disputes are being settled by diplomacy. The overlapping ADIZs problem is based upon settlement of territorial disputes over lands. Unless the territorial dispute was resolved we can hardly to break through the impasse and expected to keep international aviation safety and regional peace.
Keywords: International Law, Air Defense Identification Zone, Flight Information Region, Sovereign Airspace, No-Fly Zone, Freedom of Overflight, Anticipatory Self-Defence, Interception, Chicago Convention, Customary International Law
關鍵詞：國際法、防空識別區、飛航情報區、領空、禁航區、飛越自由、預防性自衛、攔截、芝加哥公約、習慣國際法
The Air Defense Identification Zone（ADIZ）is not a new concept. It was first established by the United States in 1950 when it created a joint North American ADIZ with Canada. There are many countries operating ADIZs and such zones are not prohibited by international law, in fact, it has no explicit basis at all in international law. ADIZ is quite different from territorial airspace and flight information region（FIR） in concept of legal. It is unilaterally set up by State for the purpose of protecting its self by means of an early warning or intercept potentially unfriendly aircraft. It's essentially a buffer zone outside a country's sovereign airspace. There are about 20 nations such as United States, Canada, Norway, the UK, Italy, France, Iceland, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam that have established ADIZs before PRC claims in November 2013. Most of the overlapping ADIZs disputes are being settled by diplomacy. The overlapping ADIZs problem is based upon settlement of territorial disputes over lands. Unless the territorial dispute was resolved we can hardly to break through the impasse and expected to keep international aviation safety and regional peace.
Keywords: International Law, Air Defense Identification Zone, Flight Information Region, Sovereign Airspace, No-Fly Zone, Freedom of Overflight, Anticipatory Self-Defence, Interception, Chicago Convention, Customary International Law
目次
壹、前言
貳、防空識別區在國際法上的意義
一、國際公約
二、國際習慣法上的承認情形
三、聯合國憲章
四、問題與探討
（一）有關各國防空權限合法延伸至領域外之問題
（二）國際法對各國防空識別區作法之合法性與必要性批判
（三）各國單方執法行為造成他國不便之合法性問題
參、防空識別區內各項作為的合法性探討
一、非強制措施
（一）提交飛行計畫
（二）遠距監控
二、強制措施
（一）強制干擾
（二）嚇阻攔截
（三）警告射擊
（四）武器擊落
三、歷年案例探討
四、問題與探討
（一）美國防空識別區強制作為之探討
（二）中共防空識別區強制作為之探討
（三）國內法作為設立防空識別區適當性之探討
肆、防空識別區重疊爭議處理與可行性分析
一、尋求外交途徑解決
二、簽訂相互劃界協議
三、研訂區域行為準則
四、修訂現行國際規約
五、交付國際司法裁決
六、形成既成事實狀態
七、行使武力迫使退讓
伍、結語
一、防空識別區非主權行使的範圍
二、國際法未明白禁止各國劃設防空識別區
三、防空識別區內仍享有飛越自由
四、對於擬進入領空的航空器得要求遵守一定行為
五、對於不擬進入領空的航空器不得採取任何強制措施
六、禁止對民用航空器使用武器
七、兼顧主權維護與公海自由的防空識別制度
壹、前言
貳、防空識別區在國際法上的意義
一、國際公約
二、國際習慣法上的承認情形
三、聯合國憲章
四、問題與探討
（一）有關各國防空權限合法延伸至領域外之問題
（二）國際法對各國防空識別區作法之合法性與必要性批判
（三）各國單方執法行為造成他國不便之合法性問題
參、防空識別區內各項作為的合法性探討
一、非強制措施
（一）提交飛行計畫
（二）遠距監控
二、強制措施
（一）強制干擾
（二）嚇阻攔截
（三）警告射擊
（四）武器擊落
三、歷年案例探討
四、問題與探討
（一）美國防空識別區強制作為之探討
（二）中共防空識別區強制作為之探討
（三）國內法作為設立防空識別區適當性之探討
肆、防空識別區重疊爭議處理與可行性分析
一、尋求外交途徑解決
二、簽訂相互劃界協議
三、研訂區域行為準則
四、修訂現行國際規約
五、交付國際司法裁決
六、形成既成事實狀態
七、行使武力迫使退讓
伍、結語
一、防空識別區非主權行使的範圍
二、國際法未明白禁止各國劃設防空識別區
三、防空識別區內仍享有飛越自由
四、對於擬進入領空的航空器得要求遵守一定行為
五、對於不擬進入領空的航空器不得採取任何強制措施
六、禁止對民用航空器使用武器
七、兼顧主權維護與公海自由的防空識別制度
| 論著名稱 | 編著譯者 |
|---|---|
| 從日本民事訴訟法之修正論國際裁判管轄規則法制化 | 何佳芳 |
隨著跨國民事紛爭逐年增加，為加速訴訟程序進行，避免在管轄攻防上耗費當事人過多的時間與勞力，日本法務省自上個世紀末即積極著手有關民事訴訟法之修正，擬針對「國際裁判管轄」做出明確規定。其間經過多次審議與協商，先後訂定多版草案，終在2011年完成立法，並自2012年4月開始施行。
我國與日本地理位置相近、人民往來密切，法律制度亦十分類似，且相較於日本，我國就有關國際管轄問題的研討起步較晚，其相關議論值得我國參考。此外，基於間接管轄之原理，日本對於國際管轄的認定方針，亦會影響我國判決將來在日本被承認與執行的可能，故有密切注意其立法動態之必要。
基於以上考量，本文首先針對日本國際裁判管轄規則法制化的背景及其立法目的加以說明。其次，就日本新法於民事訴訟法中增修之國際裁判管轄相關條文逐項探討。最後，分析我國國際裁判管轄現況，並嘗試以日本新法為借鏡，就我國管轄法制進行再考，同時探析「特別情事論」在我國實務之運作及發展可能，以供將來在國際裁判管轄的相關論述或立法上的參考。
關鍵詞：國際裁判管轄權、國際民事訴訟程序、特別情事論、土地管轄、國際私法
As to the increase of the cross-border civil disputes, at the end of the last century, the Ministry of Justice of Japan endeavored into the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure (the "CCP") to expedite the litigation proceedings and avoid wasting too much time/labor on the allegation/defense against the jurisdiction issue and then set forth the specific provisions for the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction. Several drafts of the CCP were provided during the process of several reviews and negotiations. The amendment of the CCP was finalized and enacted in April of 2012.
As our geographic location and legal system are similar to Japan, Japanese research in this connection might worthily become our reference. In addition, according to the rationale of the indirect jurisdiction, the principle of Japanese recognition of the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction might also influence the Taiwanese judgments to be recognized and enforced in Japan. It is necessary to pay attention to the status of the Japanese legislation in question.
Firstly, this thesis will introduce the background and purpose of the Japanese legislation regarding the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction. Secondly, it will discuss each new article stated in the Japanese CCP regarding the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction. Finally, it will analyze the current status of International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction in Taiwan and then refer to Japanese regime for further review along with the discussion of the application and development for Special circumstance theory in Taiwan to provide our legislation with the reference in the future.
Keywords: International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction, International Civil Procedure, Special Circumstances Theory, Territorial Jurisdiction, International Private Law
我國與日本地理位置相近、人民往來密切，法律制度亦十分類似，且相較於日本，我國就有關國際管轄問題的研討起步較晚，其相關議論值得我國參考。此外，基於間接管轄之原理，日本對於國際管轄的認定方針，亦會影響我國判決將來在日本被承認與執行的可能，故有密切注意其立法動態之必要。
基於以上考量，本文首先針對日本國際裁判管轄規則法制化的背景及其立法目的加以說明。其次，就日本新法於民事訴訟法中增修之國際裁判管轄相關條文逐項探討。最後，分析我國國際裁判管轄現況，並嘗試以日本新法為借鏡，就我國管轄法制進行再考，同時探析「特別情事論」在我國實務之運作及發展可能，以供將來在國際裁判管轄的相關論述或立法上的參考。
關鍵詞：國際裁判管轄權、國際民事訴訟程序、特別情事論、土地管轄、國際私法
As to the increase of the cross-border civil disputes, at the end of the last century, the Ministry of Justice of Japan endeavored into the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure (the "CCP") to expedite the litigation proceedings and avoid wasting too much time/labor on the allegation/defense against the jurisdiction issue and then set forth the specific provisions for the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction. Several drafts of the CCP were provided during the process of several reviews and negotiations. The amendment of the CCP was finalized and enacted in April of 2012.
As our geographic location and legal system are similar to Japan, Japanese research in this connection might worthily become our reference. In addition, according to the rationale of the indirect jurisdiction, the principle of Japanese recognition of the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction might also influence the Taiwanese judgments to be recognized and enforced in Japan. It is necessary to pay attention to the status of the Japanese legislation in question.
Firstly, this thesis will introduce the background and purpose of the Japanese legislation regarding the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction. Secondly, it will discuss each new article stated in the Japanese CCP regarding the International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction. Finally, it will analyze the current status of International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction in Taiwan and then refer to Japanese regime for further review along with the discussion of the application and development for Special circumstance theory in Taiwan to provide our legislation with the reference in the future.
Keywords: International Adjudicatory Jurisdiction, International Civil Procedure, Special Circumstances Theory, Territorial Jurisdiction, International Private Law
目次
壹、前言
貳、日本國際裁判管轄規則法制化
一、法制化的背景
二、立法經緯
（一）1996年民事訴訟法修正時之議論
（二）2005年國際裁判管轄法制化之再次展開
（三）2011年法案之通過
三、日本新法與判例法理
（一）新法制定前—特別情事論
（二）日本新法—判例法理的再建構與明文化
參、日本新法架構及其特徵
一、新法架構及其內容
（一）普通審判籍：被告住所地等之管轄權
（二）特別審判籍：因契約上債務涉訟等之管轄權
（三）消費契約及勞動關係事件：弱者保護的需求
（四）專屬的國際裁判管轄
（五）合併請求之管轄
（六）依當事人意思所定之管轄
（七）一般性規則
二、立法特徵及趨勢
（一）以內國管轄架構為基礎，配合國際裁判管轄分配之理念，修正制定國際裁判管轄基準
（二）參考外國立法及國際公約，制定內國管轄所無之特則
（三）基於國家主權而來的特有規定
（四）過度管轄之防止
（五）對於「具體妥當性的重視」—判例法理之「特別情事論」的明文化
三、小結
肆、我國有關國際裁判管轄之現況與進展
一、現行法制與實務
二、日本新法所提供之借鏡
（一）我國管轄法制之再考
（二）特別情事論模式在我國實務之進展
伍、結論
壹、前言
貳、日本國際裁判管轄規則法制化
一、法制化的背景
二、立法經緯
（一）1996年民事訴訟法修正時之議論
（二）2005年國際裁判管轄法制化之再次展開
（三）2011年法案之通過
三、日本新法與判例法理
（一）新法制定前—特別情事論
（二）日本新法—判例法理的再建構與明文化
參、日本新法架構及其特徵
一、新法架構及其內容
（一）普通審判籍：被告住所地等之管轄權
（二）特別審判籍：因契約上債務涉訟等之管轄權
（三）消費契約及勞動關係事件：弱者保護的需求
（四）專屬的國際裁判管轄
（五）合併請求之管轄
（六）依當事人意思所定之管轄
（七）一般性規則
二、立法特徵及趨勢
（一）以內國管轄架構為基礎，配合國際裁判管轄分配之理念，修正制定國際裁判管轄基準
（二）參考外國立法及國際公約，制定內國管轄所無之特則
（三）基於國家主權而來的特有規定
（四）過度管轄之防止
（五）對於「具體妥當性的重視」—判例法理之「特別情事論」的明文化
三、小結
肆、我國有關國際裁判管轄之現況與進展
一、現行法制與實務
二、日本新法所提供之借鏡
（一）我國管轄法制之再考
（二）特別情事論模式在我國實務之進展
伍、結論