行政特權實務操作與爭議檢討

Hsien-Hsun Wang; 王憲勳

請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件： http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/58789

完整後設資料紀錄

DC 欄位	值	語言
dc.contributor.advisor	黃昭元(Jau-Yuan Hwang)
dc.contributor.author	Hsien-Hsun Wang	en
dc.contributor.author	王憲勳	zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned	2021-06-16T08:31:06Z	-
dc.date.available	2014-01-27
dc.date.copyright	2014-01-27
dc.date.issued	2013
dc.date.submitted	2013-12-26
dc.identifier.citation	一、中文文獻書籍報紙出版品立法院公報第88卷第7期委員會紀錄。立法院公報第93卷第26期院會紀錄。立法院公報第94卷第1期院會紀錄。立法院第5屆第5會期第11次會議議案關係文書。立法院第5屆第6會期第15次會議議案關係文書。林世宗（2007），＜總統自創特權踐踏司法正義＞，聯合報2007年1月23日社論。民主基金會（1993）。《調查權—我們要不要國會的關鍵》，民主基金會編印。洪德旋（1976）。《美國國會的調查權》，文源出版社。孝忠延夫（1990）。《國政調查權的研究》，法律文化出版社。張台麟（1990）。《法國政府與政治》。台北：漢威。廖元豪，＜行政特權不應拗成「絕對化」＞，中國時報，2006年12月15日A4版。期刊論文史尚寬（1973）。＜議會調查權之現況與我國監察院調查權之展望＞，收錄於《憲法論叢—史尚寬法學論文選集之二》。作者自印。江大樹（1992）。＜國會調查權與聽證制度＞，收錄於《民主制度設計》。台北：業強。汪平雲（2006）。＜維持總統憲政地位與司法公信力的關鍵時刻＞，新世紀智庫論壇第36期。沈中元（1994）。＜論國會調查權—釋字三二五號解釋之比較分析＞，空大行政學報。林瑞雯（1998）。＜國會調查權之探討＞，《立法院院聞》。台北：立法院，第26卷第10期。林明鏘（1993）。＜公務機密與行政資訊公開＞，《台大法學論叢》，第23卷第1期。林明昕（2003）。＜資訊公開vs.秘密保護—論「政府資訊公開法制」之建立＞，法政學報，第16期。周良黛（2006）。＜立法院行使國會調查權之研究＞，《憲政時代》，第31卷第4期。吳煜宗（2006）。＜日本國會調查權序說＞，收錄於陳榮傳編，《國會調查權的理論與實踐》，台北：新台灣人文教基金會。吳明孝（2001）。＜從日本國會調查權淺論我國國會調查權之問題＞，《憲政時代》，第26卷第4期。李震山（2000）。＜論人民要求政府公開資訊之權利與落實＞，《月旦法學雜誌》，第62期。李建良（1999）。＜論司法審查的政治界限＞，收錄氏著《憲法理論與實踐(一)》。台北：學林文化。徐正戎（2006）。＜法國的國會調查權＞，《台灣本土法學》，第78期。許昭元（2007）。＜論行政特權—以美國法為借鏡(上) ＞，《憲政時代》，第33卷第1期。許志雄（1996）。＜國會調查權＞，《月旦法學雜誌》，第19期。施正鋒（2007）。＜罷免/彈劾總統、行政豁免權以及國家機密權＞，《台灣國際研究季刊》，第3卷第1期。許宗力（2007）。＜憲法與政治＞，收錄氏著《憲法與法治國行政》。台北：元照。陳愛娥（1998）。＜大法官憲法解釋權之界限＞，《月旦法學雜誌第42期》。陳淳文（2009）。＜論元首的或免權與國家機密特權—釋字第627號解釋評析＞，收錄於廖福特主編《憲法解釋之理論與實務》第六輯，台北：中央研究院法律研究所籌備處，專書(8)。陳淑芳（2006）。＜德國之國會調查權＞，《台灣本土法學》，第78期。郭秋慶（1995）。＜德國國會調查權的執行及其功能之研究＞，《法政學報》，第3期。郭秋慶（1995）。＜德國聯邦種院調查制度的啟示＞，《美歐月刊》，第10卷第5期。黃峻昇（1994）。＜行政權與立法權之關係＞，收錄於《法國第五共和的憲政運作》，台北：業強。湯德宗（2002）。＜三權憲法、四權政府＞，收錄於氏著《權力分立新論》，台北：元照。湯德宗（2005）。＜大法官有關「權力分立原則」解釋案之研析＞，收錄於氏著《權力分立新論卷二：違憲審查與動態平衡》，台北：元照。裘兆琳（1992）。＜美國國會監督中央情報局之成效評估，一九七四~一九九O＞，收錄於鄭哲民編《美國國會之制度與運作》台北：中研院歐美研究所。楊山鴿（2009）。＜福利國家的變遷—政治學視角下的解析＞，首都師範大學學報社會科學版第187期。蘇永欽（2005）。＜喬太守式的分權，灑狗血般的人權—簡評政治壓力鍋煮出來的五八五號解釋＞，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，第70期。學位論文包靜怡（2009）。違憲審查制度中政治問題理論之研究—以司法院大法官解釋為核心，國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。中文網頁司法院大法官網站。http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/。立法院國會圖書館立法院議事系統。http://lis.ly.gov.tw/ttscgi/ttsweb?@0:0:1:/disk1/lg/lgmeet@@0.8394764270168267。立法院全球資訊網。http://www.ly.gov.tw/03_leg/0301_main/press_con/pressConView.action?id=8102&lgno=00100&stage=8。曾建元，＜核四案與我國修憲後驗證體制的爭議問題與解決之道＞。http://www2.sljh.tcc.edu.tw/sljhsoci/citizen/a-1-7/more/2.htm。（最後參訪日2012年12月21日）。韓毓傑（2007），〈行政特權應否接受司法審查〉，收錄於財團法人國家政策研究基金會編《國政評論》，憲政(評)096-031號。http://www.npf.org.tw/post/1/1432#。（最後參訪日2012年12月21日）。二、外文文獻 Adam Carlyle Breckenridge.(1974). The Executive privilege：Presidential control over information, 30, 35-54, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press. A. Stephen Boyan, Jr.(1988). Presidents and National Security Powers：A Judicial Perspective, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. United States: Washington, D.C.. Adam K. Magid. (2009). NOTE：The Negative Executive Privilege, 20 Stanford Law & Policy Review 573. Arthur E. Sutherland. (1965). Constitutionalism in America 2. Archibald Cox. (1974). Executive Privilege, 122 University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Arthur Maass. (1983). Congress And The Common Good, N.Y.：Basic Books, Inc., Publishers Andrew George. (2008). Public(Self)-Service：Illegal Trading on Confidential Congressional Information, 2 Harvard Law & Policy Review 161. Barak Obama. (2008). Transparency and Open Government. Retrieved from： http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ Bruce Moriff .(1989). Secrecy and Spectacle：Reflections on the Dangers of the Presidency, in The Presidency American Politics, in ed. Paul Brace, Christine B. Harrington, and Gary King, New York：New York University Press. Brian D. Smith. (2002). A Proposal to Codify Executive Privilege, 70 George Washington Law Review . Brandon Rottinghaus.(2007). Putting The 2006 Bellwood Lecture In Context： Reflections on Executive-Legislative Power Sharing In Modern Foreign Policy Making, 43 Idaho Law Review 1. Barack Obama.（2009/5/21）Remarks by the President on National Security. Retrieved From http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/（last visited Dec. 21,2012） Carrie Johnson, Deal Clears Rove Miers.(2009, Mar. 9). to Discuss Prosecutor Firings. Washington Post, A8. Retrieved from http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Mastrogiacomo.pdf ; https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume14/issue1/Peterson14U.Pa.J.Const.L.77(2011).pdf David E. Pozen. (2009-2010), Deep Secrecy, 62 Stanford Law Review 338. David Gray Adler.(1996). Courts, Constitution and Foreign Affairs, in The Constitution and the Conduct of American Foreign Policy, ed. David Gray Adler and Larry N. George, Lawrence：University Press of Kansas. David Gray Adler, Resolved.(2006). A Broad Executive Privilege is essential to the successful functioning of presidency, in Debating the presidency, edited by Richard J. Ellis & Michael Nelson Rhode college. Eric Dannenmaier.(2008). Executive Exclusion and the Cloistering of the Cheney Energy Task Force, 16 N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal. Eric Lane, Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., and Emily Berman.(2009-2010). Too Big a Canon In The President’s Arsenal：Another Look At United States v. Nixon, 17 George Mason Law Review. Emily Berman.(2010). Executive Privilege Disputes Between Congress and The President：A Legislative Proposal, Albert Government Law Review. Emily Berman, Brennan Ctr.(2009). For Justice, Executive Privilige: A Legislative Remedy, 19 & n.237. Retrieved from http://brennan.3cdn.net/ed3eb0a4b215da3556_fzm6ba8ua.pdf GAO Report to Congress“Travel Office Operations”. Retrieved from http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151494.pdf。 Gary Shimitt.(1981). Executive Privilege, in The Presidency in the Constitutional Order, ed. Joseph Bessette and Jeffrey Tulis ,Baton Rouge：Louisiana State Unervisity Press. George W. Bush. (2001, Dec. 17). Congressional Subpoena for Executive Branch Documents .Retrieved from： http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2001-12-17/html/WCPD-2001-12-17-Pg1783.htm George W. Van Cleve, Charles Tiefer.(1990). Navigating The Shoals of “Use” Immunity and Secret International Enterprises in Major Congressional Investigations：Lessons of the Iran-Contra Affair, 55 Missouri Law Review. Gerad R. Ford library & museum. Battle of the Tapes, Overview. Retrieved from http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page=a。（last visited Dec. 21,2012） Harold J. Krent, From A Unitary To a Unilateral Presidency, 88 Boston University Law Review 523, 543(2008). Heidi Kitrosser.(2007). Secrecy and Separated Powers：Executive Privilege Revisited, 92.Iowa Law Review Harold Hongju Koh.(1990). The National Security Constitution：Sharing Power after the Iran-Contra Affair, New Heavon, Conn.：Yale University Press. Henrry Lanman.(2006). Secret Guarding – The new secrecy doctrine so secret you don’t even know about it. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2006/05/secret_guarding.html In re United States Department of Homeland Security, 459 F.3d. 565-571 (5th Cir. 2006). Kenneth A. Klukowski. (2011). Making Executive Privilege Work：A Multi-Factor in An Age of Czars and Congressional Oversight, 67 Clevland State Law Review. K. A. Mcneely-Johnson. (1993-1994). United States v. Nixon, Twenty Years After： The Good, the Bad and the Ugly—an Exploration of Executive Privilege, 14 Northern Illinois University Law Review. John Locke. (1690), The Second Treatise of Government. Retrieved from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/lockseco.pdf。 John F. Manning. (1941). Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, 124 Harvard Law Review. James Hamilton and John C. Grabow. (1984). A Legislative Proposal for Resolving Executive Privilege Disputes Precipitated by Congressional Subpoenas, Harvard Journal of Legislation 22. Josh Chafetz. (2009). Executive Branch Contempt of Congress, 76 U. Chicago. Law Review. Jeffrey P. Carlin. (2002-2003). Walker v. Cheney：Politics, Posturing, and Executive Privilege, 76 Southern. California. Law Review. Jonathan K. Geldert. (2008). Presidential Advisors and Their Most Unpresidential Activities：Why Executive Privilege Cannot Shield White House Information in the U.S. Attorney Firings Controversy, 49 Boston. College Law Review. John W. Dean. (2001). Hiding Past and Present Presidencies：The Problems With Bush's Executive Order Burying Presidential Records. Retrieved from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011109.html James MacGregor Burns. (1978). Leadership, New York：Harper and Row. John C. Grabow. (1988). Congressional Investgations：Law and Practice §6.3. Josh Chafetz. (2009). Executive Branch Contempt of Congress, 76 U. Chicago. Law Review. Joseph P. Harris. (1972). Congress and The Legislative Process, N. Y.： McGraw-Hill. James W. Ceaser. (1986). In Defense of Separation of Powers, in Separation of Powers—Does It Still Work? Ed. Robert A. Goldwin and Art Kaufman. Washington, D.C.：American Enterprise Institute. James Hamilton & John C. Grabow. (1984). Statute：A legislative Proposal for Resolving Executive Privilege Disputes Precipitated by Congressional Subpoenas, 21 Harvard Journal on Legislation. John Yoo. (2006, Sep. 17). How the Presidency Regained Its Balance. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/opinion/17yoo.html?pagewanted=print Louis Brandies. (1995). Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It. New York：F.A. Stokes；reprint, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Linder, Doug. (2001). The Treason Trial of Aaron Burr. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/burr/burraccount.html。 Louis Fisher. (2000). Invoking Executive Privilege Privilege: Navigating Ticklish Political Waters, 8 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. Louis Fisher. (1991). War Powers：The Need for Collective Judgement, in divided Democracy：Cooperation and Conflict Between the President and Congress, ed. James A. Thurber. Washington, D.C.：Congressional Quarterly Press. Louis Fisher. (1990). Constitutional Structure: Separated Powers and Federalism, Vol. 1, N. Y.：McGraw-Hill. Louis Fisher. (2006, Aug. 28). A Series of Studies on Presidential Power In Foreign Relations: No. 1: The “Sole Organ” Doctrine, Law Library of Congress. Louis Fisher. (2007). Constitutional Conflict Between Congress and The President, Fifth Edition, Revised , University Press of Kansas. Louis Fisher. (2002-2003). Congressional Access To Information：Using Legislative Will And Leverage, 52 Duke Law Journal. Louis Fisher. (2004). The Politics of Executive Privilege, Durham, NC：California Academic Press. Louis Fisher. (2006). In the name of national security,Lawrence：University Press of Kansas. Louis Fisher. (2008). Congressional Access To National Security Information, Harvard Journal on Legislation. Louis Fisher. (2006). In the name of national security. Lawrence：University Press of Kansas. Lance T. Leloup、Steven A. Shull. (2003). The President and Congress—Collaboration and Combat in National Policy making. Pearson Education, Inc.6. Laurent Sacharoff. (2009-2010) Fomer Presidents and Executive Privilege, 88 Texes Law Review. Louis Henkin. (1990). Constitutionalism, Democracy, and Foreign Affairs, New York：Columbia University Press. Michael B. Rappaport. (2000). Replacing Independent Counsels with Congressional Investigations, 148 University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Max Farrand. (1911). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. New Heavon, Conn.：Yale University Press,1：65. Matthew Cooper Weiner. (1996). Note, In the Wake of Whitewater：Executive Privilege and the Institutionalized Conflict Element of Separation of Powers, 12 Journal. Law & Policy. Mark J. Rozell. (1994). Executive privilege: The dilemma of secrecy and democratic accountability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mark J. Rozell. (2006). Executive privilege in an Era of Polarized politics, in Chris S. Kelly, ed., Executing the Constitution: Putting the Presidency Back Into the constitution, 104. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mattew W. Warnock. (2006-2007). Stifling Gubernatorial Secrecy：Application of Executive Privilege To State Executive Officials, 35 Capital University Law Review. Michael J. Mongan. (Dec. 2005). Fixing FACA：The Case for Exempting Presidential Advisory Committees rom Judicial Review under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 58 Stanford Law Review. Mark J. Rozell. (2010). Executive Privilege, Presidential Power, Secrecy, and Accountability, University Press of Kansas. Mark J. Rozell. (1999). Executive Privilege and the Modern Presidents：In Nixon’s Shadow, 83 Minnesoda. Law Review. Marcy Lynn Karin. (2002). Note, Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind：How Executive order13223 Expands Executive Privilege While Simultaneously Preventing Access to Presidential Records, 55 Stanford Law Review. Mary Cohn ed.. (1991). Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to Congress, 4th ed., Washinton, D.C.：Congressional Quarterly Inc.. Michael A. Ledeen. (1991). Secrets, in The Media and Foreign Policy, ed. Simon Serfaty. New York：St. Martin’s Press. Morton H. Halperin and Daniel N. Hoffman. (1977). Top Secret：National Security and the Right to Know. Washington, D.C.：New Republic Books. Mark J. Rozell & Mitchel A. Sollenberger. (2008). Executive Privilege and the Bush Administration, 24 Journal. Law & Policy. Mark P. Doherty. (1999). Executive Privilege or Punishment? The Need to Define Legistimate Invocations and Conflict Resoltion Techniques, 19 Northern Illinois University Law Review. Nancy Lammers. (1982). Powers OF Congress. Washionton, D.C.：Congressional Quarterly Inc.. Nian A. Mendelson. (2010). Disclosing”Political” Oversight od Agency Decision Making, 108 Michigan Law Review. Nick Beam.(2002).“The Enron collapse and the crisis of the profit system.”World socialist web site. Retrieved from： http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/enro-j29.shtml。 Neal Devins. (1996). Congressional—Executive Informatin Access Disputes：A Modest Proposal—Do Nothing, 48 Administrative Law Review. Norman Dorsen & John H.F. Shattuck. (1974). Executive Privilege, the Congress and the Courts, 35 Ohio St. Law Journal. Patricia Wald and Jonathan Siegel. (2002). The D. C. Circuit and the Struggle for Control of Presidential Information. 90 Georgetown Law Journal. Peter M. Shane. (1992). Negotiating For Knowledge：Administrative Responses To Congressional Demands For Information, 44 Administrative Law Review. Peter M. Shane. (1986-1987). Legal Disagreement and Negotiation in a Government of Laws：The Case of Executive Privilege Claims Against Congress, 71 Minnesoda. Law Review. Ronald L. Claveloux. (1983). The Conflict between Executive Privilege and Congressional Oversight：The Gorsuch Controvercy, 1983 Duke Law Journal. Raul Berger. (1974). Executive Privilege：A Constitutional Myth, Harvard University Press Cambridge, 1, Massachusetts. Richard M. Fried. (1994). Executive Privilege, in Silbey, Joel H. ed., Encyclopedia of The American Legislative System. Robert M. Pallitto and William G. Weaver. (2007). Presidential secrecy and the law, 93, 106, Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press. Robert J. Morgan. (1954). A Whig embattled：the Presidency under John Tyler, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press. Robert J. Havel. (1995). Iran-Contra Committees, in Donald C. Bacon etc. ed., The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. Robert J. Reinstein. (2009-2010). The Limit of Executive Power, 59 American University Law Review. Raoul Berger. (1974). The Incarnation of Executive Privilege. 22 UCLA Law Review. Roger Fisher & William Ury. (1981). Getting To Yes：Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Second Edition. Houphton Mifflin Company. Randall K. Miller. (1996-1997). Congressional Inquests：Suffocating the Constitutional Prerogative of Executive Privilege, 81 Minnesoda. Law Review. Stanley M. Brand &Sean Connelly. (1986). Constitutional Confrontations： Preserving a Prompt and Orderly Means by Which Congress May Enforce Investigative Demands Against Executive Branch Officials, 36 Catholic. University. Law Review. Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash. (1999). A Critical Comment on the Constitutionality of Executive Privilege, 83 Minnesoda. Law Review. Todd D. Peterson. (1991). Prosecuting Executive Branch Officials for Contempt of Congress, 66 N.Y.U. Law Review. Stephen C.N. Lilley. (2009). Suboptimal Executive Privilege, BYU Law Review. Stephen W. Gard.(1973). Executive Privilege：A Rhyme Without a Reason, 8 Georgia. Law Review. S. Breyer & R. Stewart. (1979). Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy, Problems text and Cases. Aspen Publishers. Stephen C. N. Lilley. (2009). Suboptimal Executive Privilege, BYU Law Review. Timothy T. Mastrogiacomo.(2010). Notes, Showdown in the Rose Gardon： Congressional Contempt, Executive Privilege, and the Role of the Courts., 99 Georgetown Law Journal. Todd F. Gaziano.(2001)“The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives.” Retrieved from： http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives。 Tom Dyson. (2008). Between International Structure and Executive Autonomy: Convergence and Divergence in post-Cold War British, French and German Military Reforms. Retrieved from http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2008/Dyson.pdf。 Waxman (2004, Sep. 14). House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform. Minority Staff Report：Secret in the Bush Administration. U.S Congress. “Report by the Office of the Inspector General on the Review of ATF's Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters.”，Retrieved from： http://www.justice.gov/oig/testimony/t1220.pdf。外文網站 Findlaw. Retrieved from：http://lp.findlaw.com/。 Leagle. Retrieved from：http://www.leagle.com/。 Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from：http://www.law.cornell.edu/。 Justia .com-US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/37/524/ The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php。外文報導 Washintonpost. ”Invetegation of Whitewater Development Corperation and Related Maters.” （1996/6/17）Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf、 “Untangling Whitewater.” （2000）Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/whitewater.htm。 ”Ruff's Argument for Executive Privilege.” （1998/3/28） Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/ruff052898.htm。 ”Judge Johnson’s Order on Executive Privilege” （1998/3/28）. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/order052898.htm。 White House Motion Seeking Privilege（1998/3/28）. Retrieved from： http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whitehouse052898.htm “ Obama’s Univision denial that Fast and Furious started on his watch”（2012/9/21）Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-univision-denial-that-fast-and-furious-started-on-his-watch/2012/09/21/7726b4ba-041f-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html 。（2012/9/24）“Obama promulgates lie about Fast and Furious snafu, police say” Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-promulgates-lie-about-fast-and-furious-snafu-police-say。（last visited Dec. 21,2012） La times（1996/10/2）.Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-02/news/mn-49669_1_committee-documents （last visited Dec. 21,2012） Foxnews（2012/6/26）.”White House refers to Issa's analysis of Fast & Furious as 'absurd'.”Retrieved from： http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/26/issa-challenges-obama-executive-privilege-claim-on-furious/。（last visited Dec. 21,2012） CNN News.（2012/7/3） “Fast and Furious follow up: The ATF and gun stores ”，Retrieved from：http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/03/fast-and-furious-follow-up-the-atf-and-gun-stores/。（last visited Dec. 21,2012） ”RNC: Obama hasn’t answered for Fast and Furious ‘scandal’”，Retrieved from：http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/237907-rnc-obama-hasnt-answered-for-fast-and-furious-other-scandals。（last visited Dec. 21,2012） Fast and Furious: Justice Department finally admits Agent Terry was firing beanbags http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/09/fast-and-furious-justice-department-finally-admits-agent-terry-was-firing-beanbags/。（last visited Dec. 21,2012）
dc.identifier.uri	http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/58789	-
dc.description.abstract	行政特權概念自我國大法官會議解釋引進以來，迄今除第585號、第627號解釋文與理由書外所揭示的適用條件與對象外，仍無其他較為具體的操作準則。第585號解釋理由書對行政首長認為所謂「可能影響或干預行政部門有效運作之資訊」者，例示了「…例如涉及國家安全、國防或外交之國家機密事項，有關政策形成過程之內部討論資訊，以及有關正在進行中之犯罪偵查之相關資訊等，均有決定不予公開之權力…」等資訊類別。客觀上似限於此三大類資訊，且高度尊重行政部門對此類資訊取捨之判斷。但觀察這三類資訊內容，卻有範圍無限延伸的可能，對行政首長的判斷也欠缺檢驗或制衡機制，對權力分立下行政權以外的其他權力正當行使，尤其是相關調查權的操作，是否會有過度侵犯的可能?對此，我國目前法制尚保持沉默。行政特權比較具體可考的內涵與操作經驗，以美國憲政實務最為完整。本文首先說明特權主張之主體、對象與界限，以及特權證立的正、反學說見解等，建立起特權制度的爭議主軸與發展背景。且由於行政特權是從憲政操作下逐步發展出來的權利，必須從重大實務個案中去了解，因此本文將花三分之一的篇幅，將美國歷史實務區分成三個階段作介紹，逐一釐清特權爭議中「公益原則及行政資訊控制權」、「絕對權或相對權」、「隱私作為特權主張之事由」、「司法介入特權爭議之定位與利弊取捨」、「少數政府的操作」、「政治力介入之影響」等議題運作實況。之後再以專章蒐集學說見解對這項議題各角度的分析、批判，找尋憲政學理上處置原則的應然。最後本文則回到我國現行法制下，關於政府體制、特權保護資訊類型、特權主體、法律執行需要以及責任政治原則等面向，行政特權應有如何之設計方向或策略進行建議，期待能給這項特權未來在立法形成自由下為設計時，較完整的參考資訊。	zh_TW
dc.description.abstract	Since the Justices of the Constitutional Court introduced the basic concept of “executive privilege” in Interpretations No.585、627, this privilege is still lack of specific operational criterion up to now. Interpretation No.585 has revealed that “…an executive chief, by the authority inherent in his or her executive powers, is entitled to decide not to make public any information that may affect or interfere with the effective operation of the executive branch.” It’s reasoning also exemplified three types information those could be not to disclosure：”…matters relating to such national secrets as national security, defense or diplomacy; internal discussions in the process of policy-making; and information regarding existing criminal investigations.” And highly respect the executive chief’s measurements and claims. But if we take a closer survey, it seems those contents and scopes of the three types of information might be over extended, or even boundless；There is still deficient of an check and balance system to the executive chief’s measurements and claims. Privilege like that exist under the principle of separation of powers might led to a certain amount of conflicts, especially causing invasions to other powers core functions, such as congressional investigation. The legal system in Taiwan still be silence to it. As for the concrete definition and operational experience of executive privilege, the United State of America’s constitutional practice should be the most complete. This article will begin from introducing the body who can claim the privilege, the object and the boundaries of the privilege, and the main argues about the legitimacy of the privilege, to establish the shapes and background of the privilege system. Due to the privilege is gradually derived from the constitutional practice, we could only observe and study it from the major cases. Thus this article will take a close look into the U.S. practice, dividing evolution of the U.S. history into three periods, to understand the core issues such as “public welfare considering and executive information control.”、'the absoluteness or relativity of the privilege '、”the privacy issues ”、”the intervention of Jurisdiction ”、”the operations of minority government” and ”political intervene ”. Then we introduce the academic researches from constitutional theories to analysis and criticize those developments. At the end, we look back to Taiwan constitutional and legal system, to examine the respects as government system、privilege information types、the body who can claim the privilege、law executing needs and the accountability of politics. Find out the designing directions the privilege for future legislation.	en
dc.description.provenance	Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T08:31:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R97a21030-1.pdf: 3493323 bytes, checksum: c41941b8f56b43e9e25b5140eae3dc04 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013	en
dc.description.tableofcontents	行政特權實務操作與爭議檢討詳目壹、前言 ……………………………………………………1 一、問題意識 ……………………………………………1 二、研究範圍與架構 ……………………………………2 貳、行政特權概念與理論基礎 ……………………………3 一、起源、定義與範圍 ……………………………………3 (一) 概念範圍與內涵 ………………………………3 (二) 特權限制及保護緣由 ………………………………6 二、我國機密概念及法制現況 ……………………………9 (一) 我國秘密概念之四種類型 ……………………………9 (二) 法位階與事務領域區分公益在實務上之操作 …10 (三) 機密審定難題與司法審查 ………………………12 三、特權主體 ……………………………………………14 (一) 總統與卸任總統 ………………………………………14 (二) 副總統 ……………………………………………15 (三) 行政首長 ……………………………………………15 1. 行政院長與政府體制之糾葛 ………………………15 2. 其他四院院長 ………………………………………16 3. 部會首長 ……………………………………………17 四、特權主張對象與界限 ………………………………17 (一) 國會調查 ……………………………………………18 1. 國會調查的目的、功能與限制 ………………… 18 2. 我國國會調查權發展與功能不彰 ………………20 3. 不同政府體制對國會調查與行政特權間對抗之影響 26 4. 小結 ………………………………………………32 (二) 司法調查與美國實務原則 …………………………32 1. 法院審查原則 ……………………………………33 2. 證據必要性與國家機密特權 ……………………34 3. Totten原則 ………………………………………35 4. 資訊公開與機密文件 ………………………………37 5. 總統通訊特權 …………………………………38 6. 小結 --司法權之憲政義務與定位 ……………38 五、正當性兩難－機密保護或民主責任? …………39 (一) 反對見解 …………………………………………40 1. 欠缺憲法基礎 ………………………………………40 2. 立憲者對獨裁之恐懼 ………………………………41 3. 知的權利與需要 …………………………………41 4. 特權濫用可能性 …………………………………42 (二) 支持理由 ………………………………………43 1. 國安外交 ……………………………………………43 2. 內部諮談特權(誠摯意見溝通需要) ……………44 3. 「法律執行」與「行政部門有效運作」 ………45 4. 憲政主義與理論之檢討 ………………………………46 (三) 本文看法 …………………………………………47 六、初步結論與研究起點 ……………………………48 參、美國實務案例與發展脈絡 …………………………48 一、脈絡流覽與階段區分 ………………………………48 二、建國後至二戰結束—單純權力分立操作 ………49 (一) 初期判準--公益原則及行政資訊控制權 ………49 (二) 憲法分享權--條約審議與部門權限 ……………51 (三) 行政運作或效能考量--少數政府的操作 ……………52 (四) 小結 …………………………………………………53 三、非美調查到後水門時代—特權概念的成型與第一道起落54 (一) 40-60年代概念的成型及非美調查：特權事由、主體與國會自律……………………………………………………………………54 (二) 水門事件 ………………………………………………56 1.絕對權或相對權? ……………………………………………59 2.白宮內部紀錄錄音之性質 ……………………………………59 3.國會調查目的正當性。 ………………………………………60 4.國會得否立法賦予法院傳票效力之審理權對抗行政特權? ……60 (三) 小結 …………………………………………………61 四、雷根至歐巴馬—概念操作狼煙四起與特權發展的第二道起落67 (一) 雷根與老布希：概念的實質擴張 …………………64 1. 「法律執行」作為特權事由? ………………………64 2. 總統日記與隱私 ………………………………………65 3. 軍事國安機密與涉外關係 …………………………67 4. 國會權力工具與政治力操作 ………………………69 5. 小結 …………………………………………………70 (二) 柯林頓：分裂政府及醜聞調查 ……………………71 1. Travelgate …………………………………………71 2. Whitewatergate ……………………………………72 3. The Espy Investigation ……………………………72 4. 印地安保護區賭場案 …………………………………73 5. 白宮反毒備忘錄案 ………………………………74 6. 海地政策案 …………………………………………75 7. 競選金援案 ………………………………………………75 8. Lewinsky Scandal ……………………………………76 9. FALN Pardons ……………………………………………76 10. 小結 …………………………………………………77 (三) 小布希的特權擴張與濫用 …………………………81 1. 司法部文件與國會監督 ……………………………81 2. 行政命令(EO)13223號爭議 …………………………82 3. 能源小組會議案 ………………………………………83 4. 柯林頓赦免案 ………………………………………86 5. The U.S Attorney Firings ………………………86 6. 加州自定排碳法規案 ………………………………88 7. CIA探員遭洩密案 .…………………………………88 8. 小結 ………………………………………………89 (四) 歐巴馬時代—行政權自律 …………………………93 (五) 歸納與分析 …………………………………………96 1. 隱私作為特權主張之事由? ………………………96 2. 國會調查權對抗行政特權對司法調查之影響 ………97 3. 各權力部門間之公益權衡 …………………………98 4. 美國總統行政命令(Executive order)爭議之啟發 99 5. 司法介入特權爭議之定位與利弊取捨 ……………101 五、變形蟲：政治力操作下的行政特權 …………………102 肆、學說檢討與爭議處置建議………………………………103 一、學說的基本肯認、限制與質疑 ………………………103 (一) 特權正當性依據的近期論辯 …………………………103 (二) 初步共識與政治力介入 ……………………………103 (三) 總統機密限制與新型態行政特權 …………………104 二、權力分立操作之討論 … ……………………………105 (一) 對抗又分享的權力設計初衷 ………………………105 (二) 權力衝突的困境與協商機制的隱憂 ………………107 三、國會與法院的角色 …………………………………108 (一) 立法限制與國會固有權力工具操作實效 ……………108 (二) 法院介入審查的法理依據 …………………………111 (三) 憲法未明文區塊的補遺 ……………………………112 (四) 法院及早介入類型化處理或「無為而治」? ………113 四、誰該擁有Final word? ………………………………115 (一) 司法自制或行政自律? ………………………………115 (二) 充實各權力部門對抗與自保之自我檢驗機制 ……116 五、特權的再定性與政治協商 …………………………117 (一) 其他補充見解利弊分析 ……………………………117 (二) 避免既有憲政矛盾的消極性特權? …………………119 (三) 法律位階的行政特權? ………………………………120 (四) 政治協商利益之極大化 ……………………………122 六、小結--立法主導司法備位的應變模式 …………124 伍、我國行政特權操作與未來展望 … ……………………125 一、美國憲政實務特權發展之啟發。 ………………126 二、我國現行法制下行政特權操作疑慮與檢討。 ………128 (一) 行政特權與內閣制。 ………………………………128 (二) 行政特權保護之資訊類型。 …………………………128 (三) 絕對權或相對權? …………………………………129 (四) 特權主體—副總統、行政院長、卸任總統。 ……129 (五) 「法律執行之需要」作為特權事由? ……………130 (六) 司法調查權介入相關議題 ………………………130 1. 司法違憲審查的政治界限 ………………………131 2. 民事及刑事案件中司法調查權介入程度有別 ……132 3. 權力部門對特權或機密認定歧異之處置 …………133 (七) 行政人事決定權與責任政治 …………………..133 三、結語 ……………………………………………….136
dc.language.iso	zh-TW
dc.title	行政特權實務操作與爭議檢討	zh_TW
dc.title	Practical Operations and Controversies review of Executive Privilege	en
dc.type	Thesis
dc.date.schoolyear	102-1
dc.description.degree	碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee	張文貞(Wen-Chen Chang),蘇彥圖(Yen-Tu Su)
dc.subject.keyword	行政特權,總統機密特權,權力分立,釋字第五八五號解釋,釋字第六二七號解釋,國會調查權,公益原則,責任政治,	zh_TW
dc.subject.keyword	executive privilege,Interpretation No.585,Interpretation No.627,internal discussions,check and balance,separation of powers,conflict,public welfare,privacy,political intervene,	en
dc.relation.page	149
dc.rights.note	有償授權
dc.date.accepted	2013-12-26
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-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用	3.41 MB	Adobe PDF

顯示文件簡單紀錄

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。