兩岸協議的法律拘束性 ─ 由Kelsen與Hart法理論試析之

Abstract

兩岸(台灣與大陸)關係因為政治的敏感性一直以來處於不穩定狀態。依憲法授權所制定的兩岸人民關係條例使得兩岸關係法制化，但因該條例本身內容的模糊性以及其法律定位的不明確，在兩岸事務的處理上所產生的問題比起已解決的問題有過之而無不及。傳統法學理論所謂國際法/國內法的二元論，難以解決兩岸事務的法律定位與相關問題。本文先行檢討目前對於兩岸協議法律定位的各種看法，包括國際法學上常見的對於國際法與國內法關係的討論；再藉由兩位法實證主義者—Hans Kelsen與H.L.A. Hart的規範性理論對此一問題進行分析與操作，同時指出理論的限制並對現狀作一反思。從Kelsen的理論中得到的啟發，我嘗試提出以授權關係作為判斷效力(拘束力)與否的看法；亦即，透過法效力的授權連結使得我們能突破當前兩岸關係的典型法律論述，不必再糾結於是否作為一國際法上意義的國家，亦可解答兩岸協議的爭議。Hart的承認規則用在理解國際法於國內法的轉換上別有幫助，但我認為他對於接受概念的說明不足以及承認規則內部的細緻複雜問題，對於實際問題的操作造成不小的阻礙。最後我指出，無論二人各自的理論有著不同的優、缺點，但都無礙於最終我們得出的結論，亦即兩岸協議對我們具有拘束力(僅管仍須細部分别探討各項協議內容而定)。

The political relationship between Taiwan(ROC) and China(PROC) is unstable. Act Governing Relations Between The People Of The Taiwan Area And The Mainland Area(兩岸人民關係條例) legistimized the relation but still left problems with its obscurity in legal phrases and legal levels. Instead monism and dualism discussed in the realm of Public International Law, the essay offers an alternative solution to the relation between Taiwan and China. Kelsen’s concept of authorization helps us to make clear relations of different legal regulations, especially their structure level. There is no need to concern whether Taiwan is a State or not, but to link the validity chain between the legal regulations. The essay also mentions that Hart provided a promionant concept of rule of recognition, with which we can explain the relations among states and international society appropriately. The essay holds, theories of two scholars take the question of Taiwan and Mainland China to the same answer, that argreements of Taiwan and China are binding, though we still need to evaluate the texts to ensure their binding forces.