文化抗辯之探究-以緊急避難為討論

Abstract

文化作為人與人互動所不可或缺的要素，從原古時期至現今社會都主宰著 人類的生活模式。多數人類從游耕採集的糧食獲取方式，再「進化」到農耕的方 式取得穀物，然而原住民或者游耕民族卻不然，他們仍靠山吃山靠海吃海，這種 依山傍水的生活模式才是他們的文化模式。 但對於原生於台灣這塊土地的原住民族而言，這類的法律對他們而言是外 來者，因此我國原住民族的案件多數以原住民族文化與國家的法典不相容為集大 成。而這種文化不協調所造成的局面，國家該如何提供足夠的資源，保護原住民 族的文化權，讓身處少數文化的原住民族之文化證據呈現於法庭，為重要議題， 而這些議題，即為文化抗辯。文化抗辯在我國原住民族多數案件裡都可見其蹤影， 但實務判決對其定義與定位各自不同，有認為應放置於構成要件層次處理，有認 為應放置阻卻違法事由階層處理，更有甚者是以罪責或是量刑階段處理。因此造 成文化抗辯呈現「一國兩制」或「一國三制」的窘境。 本文嘗試整理文化抗辯之意義，並分別從實務判決與學說分析美國與我國 對文化抗辯的看法，得出文化抗辯為何應放置於我國之緊急避難階層。試圖讓文 化抗辯可以成為穩定之實體法見解，並有效幫助原住民族維護其文化權。

Culture, as an essential element of human interaction, has shaped human ways of life from prehistoric times to the present day. While most human societies have “evolved” from obtaining food through shifting cultivation and gathering to agricultural methods for grain production, indigenous peoples and nomadic communities have followed a different path. They continue to live in harmony with nature—living off the mountains and the sea. This way of life, deeply intertwined with the land and water, represents their unique cultural model. However, for the indigenous peoples who are native to the land of Taiwan, the legal system and statutes imposed by the state are themselves foreign. As a result, most legal cases involving indigenous peoples in Taiwan stem from the fundamental incompatibility between indigenous cultures and the national legal code. The issue arising from this cultural incongruity raises a critical question: How should the state provide sufficient resources to protect the cultural rights of indigenous peoples and ensure that cultural evidence from minority groups can be presented in court? These questions form the core of what is referred to as cultural defense. Cultural defense can be observed in the majority of legal cases involving Taiwan’s indigenous peoples. However, court rulings differ in how they define and position it. Some place cultural defense at the level of the offense's constituent elements, others treat it as a justification (such as self-defense or necessity), and still others consider it relevant at the level of excuses or sentencing. This inconsistency has led to the dilemma of “one country, two systems” or even “one country, three systems” in the application of cultural defense. This article attempts to clarify the meaning of cultural defense and, through analysis of both judicial decisions and academic theories, examines how the United States and Taiwan perceive it. The conclusion reached is that cultural defense should be situated within the legal framework of necessity in Taiwan. Doing so would allow cultural defense to become a stable component of substantive law and effectively assist indigenous peoples in safeguarding their cultural rights.