請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26336
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張文貞(Wen-Chen Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Huei-Jing Hsu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 許惠菁 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T07:06:45Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-08-29 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-08-25 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、 中文文獻
(一) 書籍 1. Jane Goodall 著,吳聲海、孫正玫譯(1996),黑猩猩的悲歌,台北:大樹文化 2. Jane Goodall著,楊淑智譯(1996),大地的窗口,台北:格林文化 3. Louis Pojman編,張忠宏等譯,1997,《為動物說話—動物權利的爭議》,台北:桂冠。 4. Peter Singer 著,孟祥森、錢永祥譯,1995,《動物解放》,台北:關懷生命協會。 5. 馬克˙貝考夫 (Mark Bekoff) 編(2002),錢永祥、彭懷棟、陳真等譯,動物權與動物福利小百科,台北縣新店市;桂冠 6. 康拉得˙勞倫茲(Konrad Lorenz)著(1997),游復熙、季光容譯,所羅門王的指環:與蟲魚鳥獸親密對話,台北市:天下文化 7. 葉俊榮(1993)環境理性與制度抉擇,台北:元照 8. 葉俊榮(2002),環境政策與法律,台北:元照 9. 葉俊榮、雷文玫、楊秀儀、牛惠之、張文貞,2006,天平上的基因—民為貴、Gene為輕,台北:元照出版。 10. 劉幸義編,2004,多元價值、寬容與法律: 亞圖.考夫曼教授紀念集,台北市:五南 11. 顏厥安(2004),鼠肝與蟲臂的管制—法理與生命倫理論文集,台北;元照 (二)期刊論文 1. 吳瑾瑜 (2005),〈由「物」之法律概念論寵物之損害賠償〉,中原財經法學第15期,頁175-224 2. 李茂生(2003),動物權的概念與我國動物保護法的文化意義,月旦法學雜誌,第九十四期,頁158-178 3. 李瑞全(2000),〈儒家論動物權〉,應用倫理研究通訊第十三期,頁19-21 4. 青木人志著,李茂生譯(2007),(有關動物的法文化—從日歐比較的視野觀察),月旦法學雜誌第150期,頁141-153 5. 張文貞(2003),〈中斷的憲法對話:憲法解釋在憲法變遷脈絡的定位〉,台大法學論叢第三十二卷第六期,頁61-102 6. 張文貞(2006),〈公民複決修憲在當代憲政主義上的意涵〉,台灣民主季刊第三卷第二期,頁87-118 7. 陳德和(2000),〈從道家思想談動物權的觀念〉,應用倫理研究通訊第十三期,頁22-25 8. 蔡維音(2006),〈財產權之保護內涵與釋義學結構〉,成大法學第十一期,頁31-74 9. 蕭振邦(2000),〈動物權:一個佛教向度的解讀與解釋〉,應用倫理研究通訊第十三期,頁29-32 10. 瞿慎思(2007),人類中心主義思考下的動物權利:缺陷與修正方向,應用倫理研究通訊第43期,頁61-66 11. 釋昭慧(2000),〈動物權與護生〉,應用倫理研究通訊第十三期,頁26以下 12. 釋昭慧(2007),〈佛教「生命倫理學」研究:以動物保護議題為核心〉,應用論理研究通訊第四十三期,頁27-43 (三)學位論文 1. 丁昱仁(2006),獵捕保育類野生動物之可刑罰性研究,國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文 2. 王萱如(1995),論Tom Regan之動物權利理論,國立中央大學哲學研究所碩士論文, 3. 邱曉芬(2000),動物保護思想:彼得辛格之「動物解放」倫理探討,國立師範學院環境教育研究所碩士論文 4. 徐微喬(2007),論動物道德地位:人種中心主義的多重判斷觀點,國立清華大學哲學研究所碩士論文 5. 梁志鳴(2003),論法院在多元民主社會的溝通機能,台灣大學國家發展所碩士論文 6. 許修豪(1998),非人類動物的基本權利?—從黑猩猩談起,國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文 7. 陳怡蓁(2004),從單一判準到多重判準論動物的道德地位,國立中央大學哲學研究所碩士論文 8. 陳彥宏(2002),論動物利益的平等考量與衡量,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文 9. 黃士哲(2008),動物保護法制之比較研究—兼論動物虐待防制之問題,國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文 10. 楊國聲(1997),動物保護法理論基礎之研究,東吳大學法律學研究所碩士論文 11. 詹依純(1999),建構「人為飼養或管領動物」之法律權利,輔仁大學法律學研究所碩士論文 12. 劉璧美(2007),論湯姆雷根的強動物權立場,國立中央大學哲學研究所碩士論文 13. 歐如慧(2006),動物保護法之法制與實踐—以寵物與流浪動物之保護為主,中國文化大學法律學研究所碩士論文 14. 鄧煜祥(2007),從財產權保障之觀點論土地使用管制與損失補償—美國法管制準徵收概念之引介,台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文 15. 盧懋萍(2001),動物的道德地位—論Singer的動物倫理,國立政治大學哲學研究所 二、 外文文獻 (一) 書籍 1. Adams, Carol (1990). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist Vegetarian, New York: Continuum 2. Adams, Carol (1994). Neither Man Nor Beasts: Feminism and Defense of Animals, New York: Continuum 3. Attfield, Robin(2003). Environmental Ethics, Cambridge: Polity 4. Benton, Ted (1993). Natural Relations: Ecology, Social Justice and Animal Rights, London: Verso 5. Cabalieri, Peter (2001). The Animal Questions: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserves Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press 6. Carruthers, Peter (1992). The Animal Issue, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 7. Clark, Steven (1984). The Moral Status of Animals, Oxford: Oxford University Press 8. Cohen , Carl (1986). The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research, New England Journal of Medicine 9. DeGrazia, David (1996). Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10. DeGrazia, David (2002). Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press 11. Francione, Gary (1995). Animals, Property and the Law, Philadelphia: Temple University Press 12. Francione, Gary (1996). Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 13. Francione, Gary (2000). Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or Your Dog, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 14. Frey, Raymond (1980). Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animal, Oxford: Oxford University Press 15. Garner, Robert (2004). Animals, Politics and Morality, Manchester: Manchester University Press 16. Garner, Robert (2005). The Political Theory of Animal Rights, Manchester: Manchester University Press 17. Leahy, Michael (1991). Against Liberation: Putting Animals into Perspective, London: Loutledge 18. Linzey, Andrew(1976). Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment of Man’s Treatment of Animals, London: SCM Press 19. Regan, Tom (1984). The Case for Animal Rights, London: Routledge 20. Rowland, Mark (1998) Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence, Basingstoke 21. Ryder, Richard (1975). Victims of Science, London: Davis-Poynter 22. Sapontzis, Steve (1987). Morals, Reasons, and Animals, Philadelphia: Temple University Press 23. Singer, Peter (1990). Animal Liberation (2nd edn), London: Cape 24. Singer, Peter (1993). Practical Ethics, Cambridge: Combridge University Press 25. Warron, Mary (1997). Moral Status, Oxford: Clarendon Press 26. Wise, Steve M. (2000). Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights to Animals, Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books (二) 期刊論文 1. Gary L. Francione, Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, 48 Rutgers L. Rev. 397 (1996) 2. Gary L. Francione, Animal Rights and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance, 3 Animal L. 75 (1997) 3. Gwendellyn Io Earnshaw, Equlity as A Paradigm For Sustainability: Evolving the Process toward Interspecies Equality, 5 Animal L. 113 (1999) 4. Henry Cohen, Federal Animal Protection Statutes, 1 Animal L. 143 (1995) 5. Henry Mark Holzer, Cntracdictions Will Out: Animal Rights v. Animal Sacrifice In The Supreme Court, 1 Animal L. 79 (2006) 6. Jeff Leslie & Cass R. Sustein, Animal Rights without Controversy, 70-WTR Law & Contemp. Probs. 117 (2007) 7. Joan W. Scott, Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference: Or the Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism, 14 Feminist Studies 1 (1998) 8.Jonathan R. Lovvorn, Animal Law In Action: The Law, Public Perception, and The Limits of Animal Rights Theory As A Basis For Legal Reform, 12 Animal L. 133 (2006) 9. Joseph Lubinski, Screw this Whales, Save Me! The Endangered Species Act, Animal Protection, and Civil Rights, 4 J. L. Society 377 (2003) 10. Joseph Lubinski, The Cow Says Moo, The Duck Says Quack, And the Dog Says Vote! The Use of the Intiative to Promote Animal Protection, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1109 (2003) 11. Kate M. Nattrass, “…Und Die Tiere” Constitutional Protection for Germany’s Animals, 10 Animal L. 283 (2004) 12. Kyle Ash, International Aminal Rights: Speciesism and Exclusionary Human Dignity, 11 Animal L. 195 (2005) 13. Laurence H. Tribe, Ten Lessons Our Constitutional Experience Can Teach Us About The Puzzle Of Animal Rights:The Work Of Steve M. Wise, 7 Animal L. 1(2001) 14. M. Varn Chandola, Dissecting American Animal Protection Law: Healing The Wounds With Animal Rights and Eastern Enlightments, 8 Wis. Envtl. L.J. 3 (2002) 15. Marc Chase McAllister, Human Dignity and Individual Liberty in Germany and the United States As Examed Through Each Country’s Leading Abortion Cases, 11 TUL.J.COMP. & INT’L L. 491 (2003) 16. Ming-Han Liu, Reconsidering Animal Rights: Should Selling Live Animals For Food Consumption Be Banned?, 6 Dick. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 279(1997) 17. Robert R. M. Verchick, A New Species of Rights—Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals, 89 Cal. L. Rev. 207 (2001) 18. Ruth Payne, Animal Welfare, Animal Rights, And The Path To Social Reform: One Movement’s Struggle For Coherency In The Quest For Change, 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 587 (2002) 19. Stephanie J. Engelsman, “World Leader”—At What price? A Look At Lagging American Animal Protection Laws, 22 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 329(2005) 20. Steven Wise, Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals: The Case for Chimpanzees and Bonobos, 2 Animal L. 179 (1996) 21. Thomas G. Kelch, The Role of The Rational and The Emotive In A Theory of Animal Rights, 27 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 1(1999)10 22. Thomas G. Kelch, Toward A Non-property Status For Animals, 6 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 531 (1998) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26336 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 自1970年代以後,有關「動物保護」的議題越來越受到各國間的關注,不但在哲學倫理上開始反思動物的道德地位,如動物並非機器、會感受到痛苦,應具有某程度的道德考量;而在立法管制上也產生許多以「動物保護」為名的規範;更有許多學者以過去人權運動的經驗為借鏡,認為只有透過權利的論述,賦予動物權利才能真正完善保護動物,而本文亦在這個脈絡下來談論「動物保護」的議題。
本文認為想要真正處理動物保護之議題,必須從整個社會心態與法制來著手,檢討過去人類對待動物的態度—即「物」或「財產」的法律地位,認為正是這種極度不對等的關係造成人類恣意剝削動物。因此有必要先突破人類根深蒂固已久的物種迷思,才能平等地對待動物與人類的利益。 在提出對「物種主義」的批判後,進而引入西方「動物權」運動的哲學理論,作為本文「權利觀點」的模型基礎,並主張「權利觀點」的論述應放在憲法層次的脈絡下,透過憲法最高性來拘束下位階法律,避免當「人權」與「動物權利」產生衝突時,造成「人權初步優先推定」的僵局。而本文主張「權利觀點」的入憲模式是多元的,不應僅受限於「基本人權」的型態,除了將動物利益與人類利益平等考量外,更不應忽視人類與動物之間的差異,因此提出三種不同入憲模式「權利模式」、「價值模式」以及「環境權模式」,並就此三種模式的適用範圍、保護強度以及訴訟制度設計做介紹。 本文將三種模式與實際案例做結合與檢討後發現此三種模式乃係同心圓式的保護圖像,三種模式並非相互排斥的,而是可以依據社會的道德進城以及社會共識做調整,讓動物利益可層層被納入保護體系內。如此一來,雖然動物保護議題處理上雖然困難,但仍可有理論基礎一貫的模型可供運用。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Since 1970, the issue of animal protection is highly noticed and concerned through national wide. In philosophy, we have certain consensus that animals are not machines and they should deserve certain moral rights. In legislation regulation, there are more and more regulations about animals. Moreover, scholars even try to argue that animals should have legal rights to protect themselves. Although I agree that argument, I think the aspect of rights should be refined in some way.
To deal the issue of animal protection, we should exam the attitude of the whole society and our legal system. I find out that we people treat animals as “objects” or “property”. It is the unequal relationship that makes we human exploit animals so greatly. So I claim, not until we human get rid of the myth of specisim can we fairly and equally treat the interests of animals and the interests of human. Then I introduce theories of animal rights as the basis of the models which I propose. I think the argument of rights aspect should be put in the context of Constitution. Through the superiority of Constitution, it can avoid the situation “ prima facie of human rights” when there are some conflicts between the interests of animals and the interests of human beings. Also, I argue the aspects of rights should not be confined as the type of “human rights” we have discussed a lot in the past. It can be quite diverse. In order to equally concern the interests of animals and human beings and notice the difference between animals and human, I propose three models, such as the right model, the value model and the model of environmental right. Finally, to put my models into practice, I have to take the real cases into consideration. I find out the three types of model are compatible. They outline as an image of concentric circle. According to the progress of our social society and social consensus, the decision makers can be flexible to choose which one is the best to protect animals as wide as possible. As a result, although how animal protection in question is still a difficult issue, there is a workable model with consistent understanding of “animal rights” to be applied. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T07:06:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R94a21019-1.pdf: 1359807 bytes, checksum: b89c2620a2e9e1399a12ac5e43e79aca (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 問題意識與研究動機 1 第二節 文獻整理 3 第三節 概念名詞的先行界定 16 第四節 研究範圍與限制 20 第五節 本文論點與架構 21 第二章 動物現實處境以及動物保護措施 23 第一節 台灣部分 23 第二節 歐美地區 41 第三節 現行動物保護措施的檢討:保護不足 53 第三章 「動物權」入憲之可能性 54 第一節 「動物權」理論之介紹 54 第四章 「動物權」入憲的模式與途徑 82 第一節 「動物權」入憲的模式 82 第二節 入憲途徑 109 第五章 動物入憲模式與實際案例的研究 115 第一節 「權利模型」的案例討論 116 第二節 「環境權模式」 129 第三節 價值模式 132 第六章 結論 150 參考文獻 156 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 動物保護入憲模式之探討—從「權利觀點」出發 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Model of Animal Protections In Constitution:From the Perspective of Rights | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 葉俊榮(Jiunn-Rong Yeh),雷文玫(Wenmay Rei),林超駿(Chao-Chun Lin) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 動物權,動物保護,效益主義,多重判斷準則,人類中心主義,物種歧視,權利觀點,價值模式,環境權模式,動物, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Animal Rights,Animal Welfare,Utilitarianism,a multi-criterial concept,specisim,the right model,the value model,the model of environmental right, | en |
dc.relation.page | 163 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-08-26 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.33 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。