請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74811
標題: | 《促進轉型正義條例》與威權統治受難者定義的重構:以杜孝生為例 Reconstructing the Definition of Victims of Authoritarian Rule under the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice: A Case Study of Voyʉe Toskʉ (Hsiao-Sheng Tu) |
作者: | Yi Kao 高毅 |
指導教授: | 王泰升 |
關鍵字: | 杜孝生,轉型正義,非政治刑法,司法不法,自由民主憲政秩序,公平審判原則, Voy?e Tosk? (Hsiao-Sheng Tu),Transitional Justice,Non-political Crimes,Judicial Wrongs,The Liberal Democratic Constitutional Order,The Principle of Fair Trial, |
出版年 : | 2019 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 先後於1998年及2017年通過的《戒嚴時期不當叛亂暨匪諜審判案件補償條例》(《補償條例》)及《促進轉型正義條例》(《促轉條例》),兩者目的均在於處理戰後台灣經歷長期威權統治所遺留下的結果,但兩者定義的威權統治受難者並不相同。《補償條例》係以是否遭受「政治刑法」處罰為斷;而《促轉條例》有關平復司法不法的規定,則以追訴或審判是否「違反自由民主憲政秩序、侵害公平審判原則」為標準。本文即著眼於此差異,探討:何以《補償條例》將威權統治受難者的範圍限於遭受政治刑法處罰者?又何以《促轉條例》要重新定義威權統治受難者?此一轉變反映出什麼意義?本文將以威權統治時期被判決觸犯貪污罪,因而無法依《補償條例》申請補償的杜孝生為例,加以說明。
藉由研讀政府檔案,本文認為杜孝生貪污案實為一樁動用「非政治刑法」的政治案件。然而台灣自由化、民主化初期,因為檔案開放程度低,欠缺事實資料,致使立法者在制定《補償條例》時,僅能憑藉過去遭受政治刑法處罰者的生命經驗,以劃定受難者範圍。而杜孝生這類遭受非政治刑法處罰的受難者,便被排除在外。將近20年後,由於轉型正義理論已獲得較多認識,並且受益於檔案開放,更能掌握歷史事實,立法者有意識地重構了受難者的定義。《促轉條例》不僅放棄了罪名要件,取而代之的「追訴或審判違反自由民主憲政秩序、侵害公平審判原則」要件,提供了以實質法治國理念評價威權統治時期國家行為的實證法基礎。依照《促轉條例》的規定,杜孝生案屬於司法不法,其刑事有罪判決應視為撤銷。 從《補償條例》到《促轉條例》的轉變,說明了:充分、堅實的歷史研究,是轉型正義工程的基礎。雖然本文關注「受難者」的面相,但是轉型正義的最終目的,並不只有填補受難者損害,而是藉著認識威權統治的歷史,以永遠警惕未來的統治者不可重蹈覆轍。 Both the Compensation Act for Wrongful Trials on Charges of Sedition and Espionage during the Martial Law Period (Compensation Act) and the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice (APTJ), passed in 1998 and 2017 respectively, aim at dealing with the consequences of the long-term authoritarian rule in post-war Taiwan. However, their definitions of “victims” of authoritarian rule are different. Victims are, according to the Compensation Act, those punished for committing “political crimes.” In contrast, the provisions regarding redressing judicial wrongs of the APTJ define victims as those subject to prosecutions or sentences that “violated the liberal democratic constitutional order and the principle of fair trial.” Based on this discrepancy, this study discusses the following questions: Why the Compensation Act limited the scope of victims to those who were punished for committing political crimes? Why the APTJ redefined the victims? What is the significance of this transformation? To answer these questions, this study takes the case of Voyʉe Toskʉ (Hsiao-Sheng Tu) as an example. Because he was punished for committing corruption during the period of authoritarian rule, Voyʉe was not eligible for receiving compensation under the Compensation Act. By studying government archives, this study argues that the Voyʉe case is actually a political trial in which the laws of “non-political crimes” were employed. However, in the early days of Taiwan’s liberalization and democratization, the legislature could only draw the scope of victims based on the experiences of those who have been punished for committing political crimes, because the legislature did not have sufficient factual information due to a lack of full access to government archives. Consequently, the Compensation Act excluded those who were punished for committing non-political crimes, such as Voyʉe. Nearly 20 years later, owing to a deeper understanding of the transitional justice theory, along with a better grasp of historical facts that benefits from the open access to government archives, the legislature consciously reconstructed the definition of victims. The APTJ not only gives up the requirement of political crime, but requires instead that “the criminal prosecutions carried out or sentences imposed violated the liberal democratic constitutional order and the principle of fair trial,” and provides a basis for evaluating the acts of the state during the period of authoritarian rule under the principle of substantial rule-of-law. According the APTJ, the Voyʉe case is a judicial wrong, so his conviction shall be deemed void. The transformation from the Compensation Act to the APTJ articulates that full and sound historical studies are the foundation of transitional justice work. Even though this study pays attention to the dimension of “victims,” the ultimate goal of transitional justice is not merely repairing the injuries suffered by the victims, but also constantly reminding the future government “never again,” through learning the authoritarian past. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74811 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU201904306 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 4.97 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。