新時代舊藥方：以1999年全國司改會議的改革模式為中心

Abstract

本文從改革會議模式的角度，重新檢視1999年全國司法改革會議的召開。為深入瞭解召開該次會議的歷史背景，將回顧現代型司法制度如何進入台灣，以及伴隨著此司法制度出現的法律專業社群，在會議前後與司改相關的行動與發展。據此，先介紹西方司法制度的引進與司法改革會議的歷史背景，從日治時期與國治時期的統治者將現代型司法帶入台灣談起，瞭解現代型司法制度的內涵以及台灣民眾理解下的司法運作。由於戰後台灣的現代型司法受到民國時代中國的法政經驗影響，故須回顧民國時代中國召開司法會議的歷程，以及當時處於黨治背景下的司法權與司法行政權之爭，接著觀察戰後台灣的司改會議參與者－法律專業社群，在1999年全國司改會議召開前的相關發展。 針對1999年的全國司改會議本身，則先呈現審、檢、辯三方在開會前，各自提出的司改議題與主張，再詳細地回顧司改會議從籌備、召開、至會議結束的過程；從這些議題與開會過程可發現，與會代表彼此的相互角力，既爭權逐利也小心維護自身原有的地位，終於導致會議難以畢竟其功。為了解1999年全國司改會議的成效，透過爬梳該次會議後司法制度的變革與發展，復以1999年的司改會議經驗，對照2017年總統府司改國是會議之會議性質、成員組成、開會方式、議決規則等會議架構。進而主張：司改會議成效不彰的因素，可能就來自於「改革會議模式」本身。總之，類似1999年全國司改會議這種「改革會議模式」，實屬舊時代的產物，並不蘊含憲政架構下的民主機制與責任政治的要素，在台灣已然走向憲政民主國家的階段，若期待透過體制外的舊藥方，解決新時代的司改問題，可能有其結構性的困難。

This dissertation analyses the National Conference on Judicial Reform in 1999 based on the reform conference model. The adoption of modern legal system in Taiwan is briefed in order to understand the historical background for this conference, as well as the emerging of legal profession groups and other relevant legal developments before and after the conference. First of all, the legal system of Taiwan and history of the national conference on judicial reform are introduced. Starting from the colonial era while the first adoption of the modern legal system, the thesis reviews the depth of the adoption and the legal functions understood by the general public in Taiwan. Moreover, since the modern legal system after WWII was influenced by the previous legal structure of the Republic of China (1911-1949); the past conferences on judicial reform are discussed. Then the thesis is focused on the developments of one of the participants of the conference- “legal profession groups.” Most importantly, the National Conference on Judicial Reform in 1999 is introduced and analyzed by the subjects of reform and the whole process during the conference. The limited success of the conference is understandably while the delegates fought for powers and their own interests. Subsequently, the change and developments after this conference are discussed to understand the affect of this judicial reform. Comparing the judicial reform in 2017 and in 1999, the nature of the conferences, participating members, manners of the meeting, and the bylaws are analyzed. It’s apparent that the limited success (or insufficient achievements) of the conference is clearly caused by its reform conference model. In conclusion, the conference of judicial reform in 1999 is out of date and is also lack of democratic mechanism and responsible politics. While Taiwan is walking toward the constitutional democracy, current legal issues will not be effectively restructured by the out-of-date approaches.