在法律的獵場中競逐：臺灣原住民族社會運動與法律動員（1983-2016)

Abstract

臺灣原住民族社會運動自1980年代逐漸興起，並在三次還我土地運動與憲法正名運動達到高峰；在此過程中，部分帶領運動的原住民知識菁英亦於1990年開始提倡「部落主義」的草根回歸運動路線，開啟了臺灣原運的路線分歧。既有的研究大多採納泛原運動／部落主義的二分架構理解原運，並在1996年原民立委推動設置原民會的經驗基礎上，體制內／外的區分亦成為研究者所時常援引的分析架構。當泛原與體制內路線被強化為政治權利運動，使得部落主義與體制外路線逐漸忽視法律與社會運動的關係時，這兩組的區分架構亦同時忽視了不同運動路線的共通性與動態互動。本文立基於法律與社會運動研究基礎，以法律動員理論的觀點重新梳理臺灣原運的發展過程，強調運動過程中法律、運動者與社會運動間的動態互動。本文以法律機會結構作為歷史分期的基礎，提出不同於既有研究的臺灣原運發展史，由1983年《高山青》的原運組織行動作為研究起點，並提出四項對於原運發展重要的轉捩點：1991年因應憲法時刻進行憲法動員，1997年原住民族集體權入憲與原民會成立，2005年原基法通過，以及2016年第三次政黨輪替所帶來的原住民族轉型正義推動政策。 第二章〈拒當中華民國的「同居人」：現身於法律的原住民族（1983-1991）〉，以1983年台大原住民學生創辦《高山青》刊物為起點，其開啟爭取原住民族權利的組織與動員契機，並在1984年成立原權會後成為早期原運的領導組織。僅管處在戒嚴時期的不利法律機會結構下，運動者除了進行非正式場域法律動員外，仍然善用《請願法》的行政遊說管道，並在議題性質與運動盟友的策略下完成了多次的行動訴求。而到了1987年，除了解嚴所帶來的法律機會結構外，先前的法律動員經驗與歷史偶然性，亦加促成了反東埔挖墳運動與推倒吳鳳神話運動中的法律動員，不僅成為後續推動正名權與土地權的濫觴，也開啟了原運在正式場域法律動員的策略使用，以及部落抗爭的路線分歧。然而，兩次還我土地運動作為土地權利的立法遊說與行政遊說，以及1988年後部落抗爭的幽微法律動員策略，卻也突顯出法律在原住民族權利的真空狀態，所導致的不利法律機會結構；進而，書寫權利與挑戰既有法律的限制，成為原運法律動員的方向。 而1990年司法院釋字第261號解釋所開啟的憲法時刻，提供憲法動員的有利法律機會結構。第三章〈從無「法」可用到想方設「法」：憲法動員與部落抗爭的上下合擊（1991-1997）〉，則以原運憲法動員的1991年為開端，探究運動者透過修憲管道將推動權利入憲、創造原住民族權利憲法資源的過程。原運在長老教會與民進黨等盟友的協力下，從表達聲明、書寫草案到提案成功進入修憲，原運除了在憲法動員策略上的逐漸熟稔外，亦在過程中展現了原運內部及盟友間的差異所導致的潛在衝突。在1991年至1997年的四次修憲時刻中，原運除了憲法運動之外，亦有第三次還我土地運動、反蒙藏委員會及設置專責機構的行政與立法遊說法律動員；這些行動一方面是憲法動員的遺續，另一方面也影響了憲法動員的發展而產生動態互動。然而另一方面，原運積極參與正式場域法律動員的過程與成果，亦帶來了反挫與國家打壓的後果，例如作為反制運動的平權會，以及原運領袖遭受《集會遊行法》起訴的窘境；而這些行動亦與1991年後的部落抗爭存在著緊密關聯。本文透過法律動員理論爬梳本時期的原運，亦發現反挫、反制運動、國家打壓與運動路線分歧等看似阻礙運動發展的情況，事實上亦可能刺激原運的擴大動員與深化論述，對於運動並非只有負面意義。 第四章〈要名也要份：國家承諾的得失與實踐（1997-2005）〉，則在說明原運歷經四次憲法動員、於獲得設立原民會與原住民族權利入憲等國家承諾後，進一步透過法律動員實現承諾的內容。原住民族集體權的基礎架構在1997年納入憲法增修條文內；憲法條款中關於「民族意願」與「地位」等有待詮釋的概念，輔以1996年原民會成立的自我治理意義，開啟原住民社會自主設置民族議會的運動潮流，除了成為推動自治權的基礎、並強化各族的民族認同外，亦呈現出了各族內部的身分差異。而在2000年政黨輪替後，陳水扁所簽署之新夥伴關係與再肯認定協定作為國家的原住民族政策，以及運動者進入原民會體制內的法律機會結構下，看似有利於運動者向中央政府進行行政遊說的法律動員策略；但在諸如民族認定、保留地管理條例、自治法與原基法立法的各項議題上，卻再再顯現出政府對於原住民族權利保障的妥協與矛盾。這一方面突顯出行政機關本位主義作為限制原住民族權利的結構性因素，另一方面也呈現出民進黨在原民議題上內部差異與利益聚合態度。本時期原運訴求國家落實在憲法與新夥伴關係所給予的承諾，但在自治的議題上缺乏內部共識與國家支持、在土地議題諸如亞泥與BOT案的發展中土地權仍舊遭受侵害、在正名議題上亦在原民會的差異態度上產生分裂；國家的消極態度與運動者的分歧，使得國家承諾的落實仍存在著距離。 然而2005年透過原民立委政治角力下所通過的《原住民族基本法》，卻為前述未能實踐的國家承諾跨出重要的一部。第五章〈捏塑權利：「落實原基法」的法律動員（2005-2016）〉，指出原基法作為政治協商的結果，形式上雖然納入了包含自治權、土地權、自然資源權、文化與社會權等等的保障；但此些權利的實質內涵與意義，在立法過程中尚未有充分的討論，進而仍有待透過本時期中各個正式場域法律動員，其援引法律資源與權利構框的過程來加以填補。原基法第自治權與傳統領域權的委託立法，提供了自治法與土海法的行政遊說與立法動員機會；原基法第21條所保障的諮商同意權，則成為BOT案與礦業等開發案中保障原住民族土地的制度設計，為亞泥議題與反BOT案的原運及環運提供不同以往的法律資源與權利構框，並在環評的行政遊說中嶄露頭角；原基法第19條的自然資源使用權，則與《森林法》、《野生動物保育法》與《槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例》等法規產生競合，並在族人遭到起訴的「被動司法動員」上，成為重要的法律資源；而平埔正名運動發展過程中，則是將兩公約與原基法連結，訴求並建構自我認同權的樣貌。換言之，原基法一方面是促成行政遊說、立法遊說與司法動員的契機，另一方面亦是連結憲法與國際法原住民族權利論述的接點。 透過法律動員理論爬梳原運的發展，本文將進一步指出，運動者在身分與認同上差異，影響了其對於法律動員策略與運動路線的選擇，進而改變了原運的發展樣貌。而相反過來，原運法律動員的過程與成果，亦會再次影響既有的法律機會結構、運動者的法意識，並進一步參與形塑了原住民族內部的多元交織性與階序性認同。

Taiwan’s indigenous social movements have risen up gradually since 1980, reaching a peak during the three times of “Indigenous Land Movement”(還我土地運動) and constitutional recertification movement to claim indigenous name. Meanwhile, some leading elites involved in the movements started promoting “Tribalism”(部落主義) as a grassroots-returning movement route. Existing studies mostly accept the binary structure of ”Pan-indigenous Movement”(泛原住民族運動) and Tribalism to realize Taiwan’s indigenous social movement. Scholars further separates the analytical framework of Taiwan’s indigenous social movements into intra- and extra-governmental routes after legislators promoting Council of Indigenous Peoples(CIP) in 1996. While Pan-indigenous Movement and intra-governmental routes were emphasized as political right movement, the relationship between laws and social movements have been gradually neglected in the context of Tribalism and extra-governmental routes. Commonality and dynamic interactions between different movement courses are also neglected under both analytical frameworks. Based on social-legal analysis, this thesis reorganizes the history of Taiwan’s indigenous social movement development through legal mobilization theory (“法律動員理論“), and emphasized the dynamic interactions between laws, social movements and activists involved in movements. This thesis presents a different history of Taiwan indigenous movement development, legal opportunity structures were used to distinguish each chapter in this thesis, using the collective action by the magazine “Mountain Green”(高山青) in 1983 as a starting point, this thesis proposed four turning points throughout the history of Taiwan’s indigenous social movement development: constitutional mobilization conducted during the constitutional reform in 1991, “Indigenous Peoples”(原住民族) assembly right added into the Constitution and the establishment of CIP in 1997, The Indigenous Peoples Basic Law formulated in 2005 and the policy of indigenous transitional justice triggered by Taiwan’s third alternation of the political parties in 2016. In chapter 2, this thesis introduces the magazine 'Mountain Green” pushed by indigenous students in National Taiwan University in 1983, which became a starting point of the organization and mobilization opportunities for pursuing indigenous peoples’ rights. After “Mountain Green” transforming into Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines (ATA) in 1984, ATA became the leading organization of Taiwan indigenous movement in early stage. Under the disadvantageous LOS of the Martial law period, though, activists still conduct extra-judicial legal mobilization, and used the Petition Law as a lobbying path to Administrative agency. With the characteristic of issues and movement allies, activists completed many actions for demands. Coming to 1987, besides the LOS brought by the end of the Martial Law, the previous experience of legal mobilization and the historical contingence also contributed to the movement on land issues and claiming indigenous name, which opened the strategies of intra-judicial legal mobilization and the route divergence of tribal conflicts. However, Indigenous Land Movement as administrative and legislative lobbying on land claims, and the dim legal mobilization strategies in tribal conflicts, both highlighted the disadvantageous LOS in the vacuity of indigenous peoples’ rights in law. Thus, writing rights and challenging the restrict of existing laws became the trend in legal mobilization of Taiwan indigenous movement. The constitutional moment triggered by The Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 261 in 1990 provided advantageous LOS on constitutional mobilization. In chapter 3, this thesis introduces the constitutional mobilization of Taiwan indigenous movement, and exploring the process that activists formulated rights and legal stocks in Constitution through amending Constitution. With the assistance of allies, from claiming, drafting to proposing amendment, Taiwan indigenous movement gradually acquainted with the strategies of constitutional mobilization, and also presented latent conflicts stemmed from differences between allies. In 1991-1997, besides constitutional mobilization, there were also legal mobilization of administrative and legislative lobbying in Third Indigenous Land Movement and promoting CIP movement. These movements were legacies of constitutional mobilization, interacting with constitutional mobilization dynamically. With the process and results of intra-judicial legal mobilization, however, there were also backlashes and government suppression, which were also connected closely with tribal conflicts after 1991. This thesis also indicated that counter-movement and government suppression not only impeded but stimulated movement, which brought positive meanings to Taiwan indigenous movement. In chapter 4, after achieving CIP and Constitution Amendment of Indigenous peoples, this thesis introduce how Taiwan indigenous movement furthermore realized these results through legal mobilization. After the framework of assembly rights included in Constitution, many uncertain legal concepts awaited further interpretation. With the implication of self-governance in promoting CIP, Taiwan indigenous movement started a movement trend of setting national assembly, which were foundation of national autonomy and identity. Besides, after the first alternation of the political parties in 2000, president Chen signed“A New Partnership Between the Indigenous Peoples and the Government of Taiwan”, providing advantageous LOS for Taiwan indigenous movement. Nevertheless, government still compromised and ignored indigenous assembly rights in many issues, revealing the attitude of interest coherence of Democratic Progressive Party. The negative attitude of government and divergence of movement impeded the implement of Constitution Amendment of Indigenous peoples. However, under the political wrestling of indigenous legislators, The Indigenous Peoples Basic Law(IPBL) formulated in 2005, stepping forward on indigenous assembly rights. In chapter 5, this thesis introduce that as a political consultation, the rights in IPBL needed to be realized through intra-judicial legal mobilization. In one hand, IPBL is opportunities for intra-judicial legal mobilization. In the other hand, IPBL is the connection point between international indigenous rights course and Constitution. In the end, this thesis further indicate that the divergence in identities of activists influenced the choices on legal mobilization strategies and routes, which changed the trajectory of Taiwan indigenous movement. In contrast, the process and results of legal mobilization also changed existing LOS and legal consciousness of activists, and participated shaping the intersectionality and sequential identities.