我國不義遺址之法制研究—以西班牙記憶場所法制及南非國家遺產保存體系為借鏡

Abstract

不義遺址作為國家威權統治時期侵害人權事件的發生地，是國家過去不義行為的歷史見證，而在台灣則代表著歷史記憶分歧乃至於對國族認同想像差異之課題。再加上台灣威權統治時期長達47年、結束後又時隔一段時間才開啟轉型正義，不義遺址保存更是在2017年的《促進轉型正義條例》、《國家人權博物館組織法》中才正式成為法制用語及法定義務，但一直欠缺具體之實質規範。 本文為「不義遺址保存」的法制政策建構法理基礎，我國實務肯認轉型正義具有憲法價值，已於台灣憲法史上形成典範變遷。本文認為應實踐轉型正義的憲法義務係源自於對自由民主憲政秩序之回復與確保，以及由此衍生的人權保障原則、民主共和國原則、國民主權原則、權力分立原則，及國家應給予制度性賠償與真相之記憶義務。而不義遺址保存在我國轉型正義脈絡下，彰顯國家承認曾實施違反自由民主憲政秩序之行為、重新評價當時的不法和不當統治方式、還原威權統治時期於特定地點侵害人權的權力運作機制和具體實施行為，推動人權教育以鞏固民主。最後，國家推動不義遺址保存之義務不會僅侷限於公有產權，涉及私有產權中個人財產權、國家記憶義務之衡量。 台灣的不義遺址保存政策，一方面試圖在轉型正義框架下通過不義遺址專法草案，一方面亦依靠既有的文化資產治理體系作為過渡性保障，本文參照西班牙記憶場所法制與南非國家遺產治理體系的經驗，基於轉型正義的憲法義務實踐、轉型正義議題的特殊性、不義遺址之特性及其重視活化紀念與教育之後續再利用事宜，參照我國與西班牙推動記憶法制規範相似的歷史進程，認為不義遺址法制仍有單獨立法之必要，賦予不義遺址一獨立之法律地位，法律效果至少應包含賦予管理機關「空間保存」與「活化教育」義務，主管機關則應針對不同類型化之不義遺址制定整體保存方案、監督管理機關，並針對私有不義遺址善盡溝通義務及規劃義務，人民僅有在一定範圍內負有配合之社會義務。而在政治現實下，不義遺址尋既有文化資產之路徑保存時，南非得做為我國《文化資產保存法》或其子法修正之借鏡，使文化資產保存體制蘊含人權及轉型正義之價值判斷與政策意旨，以涵蓋不義遺址之保存與活化，但仍各有其侷限。

Historical sites of injustice, as locations where human rights violations occurred during periods of authoritarian rule, serve as historical witnesses to past state injustices. In Taiwan, they also symbolize the divergence in historical memory and the differing visions of national identity. Given Taiwan's 47 years of authoritarian rule and delay in initiating transitional justice measures after its end, the legal recognition of historical sites of injustice was only formalized in 2017 through the Act on Promoting Transitional Justice and the Organizational Act of the National Human Rights Museum. However, concrete substantive regulations for their preservation remain lacking. This thesis aims to establish the legal and policy framework for the preservation of historical sites of injustice. Taiwanese legal practice has recognized the constitutional value of transitional justice, leading to a paradigmatic shift in Taiwan’s constitutional history. This study asserts that the constitutional obligation to implement transitional justice stems from the restoration and safeguarding of a liberal democratic constitutional order, along with its associated principles, including the protection of human rights, the democratic republican principle, the principle of popular sovereignty, the separation of powers, and the state's duty to provide institutional reparations and preserve historical truth. Within Taiwan’s transitional justice framework, the preservation of historical sites of injustice serves to acknowledge past state actions that violated democratic constitutional norms, re-evaluate past unlawful and inappropriate governance, reconstruct the mechanisms and specific actions through which state power violated human rights at certain locations, and promote human rights education to strengthen democracy. Moreover, the state’s obligation to preserve these sites is not limited to public property but also involves balancing individual property rights with the state’s duty to preserve collective memory. Taiwan’s policy on preserving historical sites of injustice operates on two fronts: attempting to enact a dedicated special law while simultaneously relying on the existing cultural heritage governance system as an interim safeguard. This thesis draws from the legal frameworks of Spain’s memory sites legislation and South Africa’s national heritage governance system. Considering the constitutional obligations of transitional justice, the unique nature of transitional justice issues, the distinct characteristics of historical sites of injustice, and the emphasis on revitalization, commemoration, and education, this study argues for the necessity of a standalone legal framework. Taiwan’s historical trajectory in developing memory laws is similar to that of Spain, further supporting the need for independent legislation to grant historical sites of injustice a distinct legal status. The legislation should establish the duty of managing authorities to both preserve these spaces and promote educational initiatives. The competent authority should formulate comprehensive preservation plans based on different types of sites, supervise managing agencies, and fulfill communication and planning responsibilities for privately owned historical sites of injustice, while private owners would only bear limited social obligations to cooperate.Given the political realities, if Taiwan chooses to preserve historical sites of injustice under its existing cultural heritage framework, South Africa’s model could serve as a reference for amending Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage Preservation Act or its subsidiary regulations. By integrating human rights and transitional justice values into cultural heritage law, it can encompass the preservation of historical sites of injustice, but still has its limitations.