請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4517完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳妙芬(Miao-Fen Chen) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ting-Wei Wan | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 萬庭威 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-14T17:42:54Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-08-16 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-14T17:42:54Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2015-08-16 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2015-08-13 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 法院判決
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, (Supreme Court of the United States 1896). United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (Supreme Court of the United States 1938). Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (Supreme Court of the United States 1954). Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (Supreme Court of the United States 1965). Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (Supreme Court of the United States 1973). Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (Supreme Court of the United States 1992). Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (Supreme Court of the United States 1996). Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702 (Supreme Court of the United States 1997). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court of the United States 1998). Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (Supreme Court of the United States 2003). Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, Docket No. 14-556 (slip opinion) (Supreme Court of the United States 2015). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf 專書與期刊文獻 Brown, W. (2002). Suffering the Paradoxes of Rights. In W. Brown & J. E. Halley (Eds.), Left legalism/left critique (pp. 420-434). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Brown, W., & Halley, J. E. (2002). Left Legalism/Left Critique - Introduction. In W. Brown & J. E. Halley (Eds.), Left Legalism/Left Critique (pp. 1-37). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ackerman, B. A. (1985). Beyond Carolene Products, Harvard Law Review, 98, 713-746. Chemerinsky, E. (2006). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (3rd Ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers. Cossman, B. (2007). Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139-167. Fineman, M. A., Jackson J. E., & Romero, A.P. (Eds.), (2009) Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Franke, K. M. (1995). Central Mistake of Sex Discrimination Law: The Disaggregation of Sex from Gender. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144, 1-100. Franke, K. M. (1999). Becoming a Citizen: Reconstruction Era Regulation of African American Marriages. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 11, 251-310. Franke, K. M. (2001). Theorizing Yes: An Essay on Feminism, Law, and Desire Essay. Columbia Law Review, 101, 181-208. Franke, K. M. (2002). Putting Sex to Work. In W. Brown & J. E. Halley (Eds.), Left legalism/left critique (pp. 290-336). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Franke, K. M. (2004). Domesticated Liberty of Lawrence v. Texas, The Commentary. Columbia Law Review, 104, 1399-1426. Franke, K. M. (2006). Politics of Same-Sex Marriage Politics, The Sexuality and Marriage: Essay. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 15, 236-248. Franke, K. M. (2007). Longing for Loving Symposium: Forty Years of Loving: Confronting Issues of Race, Sexuality, and the Family in the Twenty-First Century - Panel I: Historical Perspectives on Race, Sex, and Family. Fordham Law Review, 76, 2685-2708. Halberstam, J. (2008). The Anti Social Turn in Queer Studies, Graduate Journal of Social Science, 5(2), 140-156. Halley, J. E. (1989). The Politics of the Closet: Towards Equal Protection for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity. UCLA Law Review, 36, 915-976. Halley, J. E. (1993). The Construction of Heterosexuality. In M. Warner (Ed.), Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory (pp. 82-102). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Halley, J. E. (1993). Sexual Orientation and the Politics of Biology: A Critique of the Argument from Immutability. Stanford Law Review, 46, 503-568. Halley, J. E. (1994). Reasoning about Sodomy: Act and Identity in and after Bowers v. Hardwick. Virginia Law Review, 79, 1721-1780. Halley, J. E. (1997). Romer v. Hardwick Gay Rights and the Courts: The Amendment 2 Controversy. University of Colorado Law Review, 68, 429-452. Halley, J. E. (1999). Don't: A Reader's Guide to the Military's Anti-gay Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Halley, J. E. (2000). 'Like Race' Arguments. In J. Butler, J. Guillory, & K. Thomas (Eds.), What's Left of Theory?: New Work on the Politics of Literary Theory (pp. 40-74). New York: Routledge. Halley, J. E. (2001). Recognition, Rights, Regulation, Normalization: Rhetorics of Justification in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate. In R. Wintemute et. al. (Eds.), Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships: A Study of National, European, and International Law (pp. 97-111). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Halley, J. E. (2002). Sexuality Harassment. In W. Brown & J. E. Halley (Eds.), Left Legalism/Left Critique (pp. 80-104). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Halley, J. E. (2005). The Politics of Injury: A Review of Robin West’s Caring for Justice, Unbound: Harvard Journal of the Legal Left, 1, 65-84. Halley, J. E. (2006). Split Decisions: How and Why to Take a Break from Feminism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Halley, J. E. (2008a). Rape at Rome: Feminist Interventions in the Criminalization of Sex-Related Violence in Positive International Criminal Law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 30, 1-124. Halley, J. E. (2008b). Rape in Berlin: Reconsidering the Criminalisation of Rape in the International Law of Armed Conflict. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 9, 78-124. Halley, J. E. (2011a). After Gender: Tools for Progressives in a Shift from Sexual Domination to the Economic Family After Gender: Examining International Justice Enterprises. Pace Law Review, 31, 887-924. Halley, J. E. (2011b). What is Family Law: A Genealogy Part I., Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 23, 1-109. Halley, J. E. (2011c). What is Family Law: A Genealogy Part II., Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 23, 189-294. Halley, J. E., & Parker, A. (2007). After sex? On writing since queer theory - Introduction. South Atlantic Quarterly, 106(3), 421-432. doi: 10.1215/00382876-2007-001 Hunter, N. D. (2003). Living with Lawrence Symposium: Gay Rights after Lawrence v. Texas. Minnesota Law Review, 88, 1103-1139. Hunter, N. D. (2006a). Sexual Orientation and the Paradox of Heightened Scrutiny. Dukeminier Awards: Best Sexual Orientation Law Review, 4, 209-235. Hunter, N. D. (2006b). Twenty-First Century Equal Protection: Making Law in an Interregnum Eighth Symposium Issue of Gender and Sexuality Law: II. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 7, 141-169. Hunter, N. D. (2015). Deer in Headlights: The Supreme Court, LGBT Rights, and Equal Protection, The Nineteenth Annual Frankel Lecture: Commentary. Houston Law Review, 52, 1121-1145. MacKinnon, C. A. (1982). Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory. Signs, 7, 515-544. MacKinnon, C. A. (1983). Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence. Signs, 8, 635-658. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacKinnon, C. A. (2000). Points against Postmodernism. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 75, 687-712. Nichols, J. A. (1998). Louisiana's Covenant Marriage Law: A First Step Towards a More Robust Pluralism in Marriage and Divorce Law? Emory Law Journal, 47, 929-1001. Norrie, A. W. (2009). Citizenship, Authoritariansim and the Changing Shape of the Criminal Law. In B. McSherry, A. W. Norrie, & S. Bronitt (Eds.), Regulating Deviance: The Redirection of Criminalisation and the Futures of Criminal Law (pp. 13-34). Porland, OR: Hart Publishing. Nunokawa, J. (2007). Queer Theory: Postmortem. South Atlantic Quarterly, 106(3), 553-563. doi: 10.1215/00382876-2007-014 Richardson, D. (2000a). Claiming Citizenship? Sexuality, Citizenship and Lesbian/Feminist Theory. Sexualities, 3(2), 255-272. doi: 10.1177/136346000003002009 Richardson, D. (2000b). Constructing sexual citizenship: theorizing sexual rights. Critical Social Policy, 20(1), 105-135. doi: 10.1177/026101830002000105 Robson, R., & Kessler, T. (2008). Book Review: Unsettling Sexual Citizenship. McGill Law Journal, 53, 535-572. Rubin, G. (1993). Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (pp. 3-44). New York: Routledge. Ruskola, T. (2005). Gay Rights versus Queer Theory: What is Left of Sodomy after Lawrence v. Texas? Social Text, 23, 235-249. doi: 10.1215/01642472-23-3-4_84-85-235 Sedgwick, E. K. (2003). Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, You're so Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay is about You. In E. K. Sedgwick & A. Frank (Eds.), Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity (pp.123-151). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Sedgwick, E. K. (2011). Thinking through Queer Theory. In E. K. Sedgwick & J. Goldberg (Eds.), The Weather in Proust (pp. 190-203). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Sharpe, A. (2002). Transgender Jurisprudence: Dysphoric Bodies of Law. London, UK: Cavendish Publishing. Smith, S. (2013-2014 Winter). Black Feminism and Intersectionality. International Socialist Review. Retrieved from http://isreview.org/issue/91/black-feminism-and-intersectionality Stychin, C. F. (1995). Law's Desire: Sexuality and the Limits of Justice. New York: Routledge. Stychin, C. F. (1998). A Nation by Rights: National Cultures, Sexual Identity Politics, and the Discourse of Rights. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Stychin, C. F. (2003). Governing Sexuality: The Changing Politics of Citizenship and Law Reform. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. West, R. (1999). Caring for Justice. New York: NYU Press. West, R. (2005a). Desperately Seeking a Moralist. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29, 1-50. West, R. (2005b). Law's Nobility. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 17, 385-458. Wintemute, R. (1997). Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: The United States Constitution, The European Convention and The Canadian Charter. Gloucestershire, UK: Clarendon Press. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4517 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本篇論文對英美法學中使用酷兒理論與性公民身分理論的法學家做一梗概性的引介，並試著結合酷兒理論和性公民身分理論對2015年美國聯邦最高法院指標性判決Obergefell v. Hodges進行批判式的解讀。從Janet Halley與Katherine Franke批判二元對立與批判婚姻規範性的理論出發，結合Carl Stychin與Brenda Cossman論性公民身分的法學論述，我指出Obergefell v. Hodges判決創造了美國憲法中自由權利法理與美國政治中自由論述的奇特伴侶關係。本文亦嘗試指出美國酷兒理論移植來台後產生的倫理問題並加以批判。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This thesis serves as a preliminary introduction to queer theory and sexual citizenship theories in Anglo-American legal scholarship. In this thesis, I combine the use of queer legal theory and sexual citizenship scholarships in my reading of the landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges delivered by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. With theoretical tools from jurists Janet Halley, Katherine Franke, Carl Stychin and Brenda Cossman, I argue that the Obergefell ruling set forth an interesting coupledom between the Constitutional rights of liberty and the discourse of freedom in American politics. I also argue that the transplantation of queer theory from America to Taiwan produces some ethical wrongs which need to be addressed and critiqued. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-14T17:42:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R97A41006-1.pdf: 2133228 bytes, checksum: 03e32a3a29160db9af02d2fbf67e44e5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....i
中文摘要………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii 英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iii 第一章、緒論 1 本文的研究對象與範圍 1 CARL STYCHIN論美國的權利論述與民族建立 1 本文的認同焦慮 3 本文結構與章節安排 4 第二章、酷兒法學理論 6 本章概述 6 CARL STYCHIN：朝向酷兒法學 7 JANET HALLEY: 二元對立的酷兒批判 11 行為/身分認同(Act/Identity)二元對立的批判 11 異性戀的建構 11 性悖軌法理的酷兒閱讀：行為/身分認同(Act/Identity)操作如何建構出異性戀位置之一 17 Don't Ask, Don't Tell：行為/身分認同(Act/Identity)操作如何建構出異性戀位置之二 20 同性戀就像種族一樣？Halley評認同政治倡議的倫理問題以及多元交織性的酷兒思考 24 性騷擾立法的意外後果：同性戀恐慌 31 KATHERINE FRANKE: 批判生殖規範與肯定性欲 40 理論化「我要」(Yes)：抵抗生殖規範 40 讓性做功 44 完事/去性(AFTER SEX)之後的酷兒理論？ 46 本節概要 46 去性(After Sex)的Lawrence v. Texas 47 Teemu Ruskola：去性後還剩下甚麼？ 47 Katherine Franke論馴養自由及同性婚姻的政治 48 完事(After Sex)之後的酷兒理論 54 Jeff Nunokawa：酷兒理論的身後事 54 Sedgwick：偏執閱讀/修復閱讀/酷兒思考 55 本章結論 59 第三章、性公民身分與法學 61 本章概要 61 公民身分理論 61 Alan Norrie論Marshall公民身分與法律上人格的關係 61 Diane Richardson理論化性公民 63 Carl Stychin論治理性/公民 68 Brenda Cossman的性公民身分理論 71 本章小結 77 第四章、結論兼評述 OBERGEFELL V. HODGES 78 本章概要 78 權利論述的批判 78 Halley與Brown論法律的誘惑 78 不可能不想要：Wendy Brown論權利的弔詭 82 本節小結 84 OBERGEFELL V. HODGES的判決評論 84 Obergefell v. Hodges判決概要 84 評論一：自由(liberty)？自由(freedom)？ 88 評論二：婚姻位置取代異性戀位置？ 90 評論三：所以我們(we)自由(free)了，然後呢？ 91 中文酷兒語境的倫理問題 92 全文結論 96 參考文獻 98 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 英美法學中的酷兒與性公民身分─理論初探 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Preliminary Inquiry into Queer Theories and Sexual Citizenship Theories in Anglo-American Law Scholarship | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 103-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張君玫(Jun-Mei Chang),趙彥寧(Yan-Ning Chao) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 酷兒,性公民身分,美國聯邦憲法,同性婚姻,同性戀, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Queer,Sexual Citizenship,U.S. Constitution,Same-sex marriage,Homosexual, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 102 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2015-08-13 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 科際整合法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 科際整合法律學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-104-1.pdf | 2.08 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。