Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133425
題名: 我國政治類人權檔案開放應用之研究
A Study on Archival Public Access of Taiwan Political Human Rights Archives
作者: 余皇瑋
Yu, Huang-Wei
貢獻者: 薛理桂
Hsueh, Li-Kuei
余皇瑋
Yu, Huang-Wei
關鍵詞: 人權
人權檔案
檔案開放應用
Human Rights
Human Rights Archives
Archival Public Access
日期: 2020
上傳時間: 4-Jan-2021
摘要: 我國自1996年舉行中華民國第9任總統選舉,亦是第一次的公民直選,象徵著我國已成為民主國家。惟一個健全的民主國家,同時也必須處理過去不正義政府的問題,也就是履行轉型正義。而檔案本身作為國家和社會發展的歷史紀錄,更是與轉型正義密不可分,惟此類人權檔案之形成脈絡、相關法律以及其開放應用之困難,仍有研究分析之必要性。為達上述目的,本研究目的包括以下三項:\n一、分析我國現行法規對於處理政治類人權檔案之發展與內容。二、以國外人權檔案開放應用之經驗,作為學習對象與參考。三、探討我國人權檔案開放應用可能面臨之難題。\n\n本研究主要透過深度訪談法,訪談我國人權檔案典藏單位、專家學者以及受難者與受難家屬。訪談內容涵蓋人權檔案典藏概況、人權檔案應用方式、相關法律看法、人權檔案開放應用態度,以及其他意見等。共邀請到13位受訪對象,其中1位採用書面回覆未實際參與訪談,共計取得13份質性資料。再輔以文獻探討整理人權概念、我國人權發展脈絡、我國人權檔案開放應用相關法律以及檔案理論與實務後,將結果綜合分析,藉以探討我國政治類人權檔案開放應用,以作為實務推行之參考。\n\n研究結果歸納為三大點共十二項,在法律方面包括:(一)另立《政治檔案條例》之必要性與成效性存在意見分歧;(二)補償文書符合人權檔案之定義,但不屬於我國《政治檔案條例》所定義之政治檔案;(三)「政治檔案」此一名詞用語尚有調整空間,且定義須適切;(四)《促轉條例》與《檔案法》無明顯衝突;(五)《個資法》與《國家機密保護法》約束人權檔案之開放應用;在國外做法方面包括:(一)德國在人權檔案開放應用與加害者身分處理方面成熟穩健;(二)西班牙《歷史記憶法》與歷史記憶文件中心的特點;(三)曼德拉博物館、南非歷史檔案館相仿之檔案館;(四)韓國歷史脈絡與518紀念基金會之發展,適合成為我國參考方向;在難題方面包括:(一)人權檔案典藏單位受到人力、預算、職權與典藏政策限制;(二)我國人權檔案之形成背景、組成與個資問題複雜;(三)受難者逐漸凋零,進行檔案授權與口述歷史時間緊迫。\n\n本研究依據研究結果提出以下五點建議:一、消除《政治檔案條例》分歧;二、檢討《個資法》與《國家機密保護法》;三、參考德國做法,考慮公開加害者身分;四、整合二二八基金會與人權館兩者資源,並效仿518紀念基金會之作法;五、協助民間設立非營利性質之人權歷史檔案館。
Since 1996, Taiwan has held the 9th presidential election of the Republic of China. It is also the first direct election of citizens, symbolizing that our country has become a democratic country. But a democratic country must also deal with the problem of unjust governments in the past, that is, the implementation of transitional justice. The archive itself, as a historical record of national and social development, is inseparable from the justice of transition. However, the formation of such human rights archives, related laws, and the difficulties in their public access still require research and analysis. In order to achieve the above objectives, the purposes of this paper are as follows. (1) Analyze the development and content of Taiwan`s current laws and regulations regarding the handling of political human rights archives. (2) To learn and follow the experience of foreign human rights archives public access. (3) Discuss the problems that may be faced by the public access of human rights archives in Taiwan.\n\nThis study mainly used in-depth interviews to interview Taiwan`s human rights archives, experts and scholars, survivors and their families. The content of the interview covered the general situation of the collection of human rights archives, the application methods of human rights archives, relevant legal opinions, attitudes towards public access of human rights archives, and other opinions. This study invited 13 interviewees, one of whom responded in written information without actually participating in the interview. A total of 13 qualitative materials were obtained. After the interview, combined with reference materials to discuss and sort out the concept of human rights, the development of human rights in Taiwan, the laws related to the public access of human rights archives in Taiwan, and the theory and practice of archives. This study continues to analyze interview results and reference materials to discuss the public access of Taiwan`s political human rights archives as a reference for practical implementation.\n\nThe results are summarized into three major points, a total of twelve items. In terms of law, they include: (1) There are differences of opinion on the necessity and effectiveness of the "Political Archives Act" (2) Compensation documents fit the definition of human rights archives, but are not covered by the political archives as defined in the "Political Archives Act " of Taiwan; (3) The term "political archives" still needs to be adjusted, and the definition must be appropriate; (4) There is no obvious conflict between the " Promotion of Transitional Justice Act " and the "Archives Law" (5) The "Personal Information Act" and "State Secrets Protection Act" restrict the public access of human rights archives; In terms of Foreign practices include: (1) Germany is mature and stable in the public access of human rights archives and the processing of perpetrator`s identity; (2) Spain`s " Proyecto de Ley de la Memoria Histórica" and Centro Documental de la Memoria Histórica; (3) Mandela Museum, South African History Archive; (4) The history of South Korea and the development of the 518 Memorial Foundation are suitable for reference in Taiwan; In terms of the difficult aspects include: (1) The Human rights archives lack manpower, budget, authority, and are restricted by collection policies; (2) The background, composition, and personal privacy of human rights archives in Taiwan are complicated; (3) A large number of survivors have passed away, and the time for archive authorization and oral history is tight..\n\nBased on the results, this study provides five suggestions: (1) Eliminate differences in the "Political Archives Act" (2)Review the "Personal Information Act" and the "State Secrets Protection Act" (3)Refer to German practices and consider disclosing the identity of the perpetrators; (4) Integrate the resources of the 228 Foundation and the Human Rights Museum, and follow the practice of the 518 Memorial Foundation; (5) The Taiwan government assists the people in setting up a non-profit historical archives of human rights.
參考文獻: 財團法人二二八事件紀念基金會(2020a)。本會簡介。檢自https://www.228.org.tw/about.php?ID=1\n財團法人二二八事件紀念基金會(2020b)。事件論述。檢自https://www.228.org.tw/228_overview.php?PID=7\n中華民國法務部(2005)。主管法規查詢系統《政府資訊公開法》。檢自https://mojlaw.moj.gov.tw/LawContentReason.aspx?LSID=FL037987&LawNo=1\n王御風(2016)。飛彈下的總統:1996總統直選。檢自http://takao.tw/1996-presidential-election/\n立法院法律系統(2015)。法條沿革—《個人資料保護法》。檢自https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?006A36A01E450000000000000000032000000007000000^01829104121500^0004E001001\n立法院法律系統(2019)。法條沿革—《政治檔案條例》。檢自https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?00864A20CD310000000000000000032000000007000000^05201108070400^0006B001001\n立法院法律系統(2019b)。法條沿革—《國家機密保護法》。檢自https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?005B3645AC6E0000000000000000032000000007000000^01836108050700^000D2001001\n全國法規資料庫(2005)。《政府資訊公開法》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=I0020026\n全國法規資料庫(2006)。《戒嚴時期不當叛亂暨匪諜審判案件補償條例》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=F0120018\n全國法規資料庫(2008)。《檔案法》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0030134\n全國法規資料庫(2013)。《國家發展委員會檔案管理局組織法》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0010107\n全國法規資料庫(2015)。《個人資料保護法》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=I0050021\n全國法規資料庫(2017)。《促進轉型正義條例》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0030296\n全國法規資料庫(2018)。《二二八事件處理及賠償條例》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=I0020013\n全國法規資料庫(2019a)。《中華民國憲法》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A0000001\n全國法規資料庫(2019b)。《政治檔案條例》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=A0030312\n全國法規資料庫(2019c)。《國家安全法》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A0030028\n全國法規資料庫(2019d)。《國家機密保護法》。檢自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=I0060003\n吳威志(2018)。《政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例》與《促進轉型正義條例》涉及的違憲與釋憲。人權會訊,129,22-32。\n宋榛穎、林怡臻(2011)。媒體侵犯隱私權之判決研究:台灣與美國之比較。傳播與管理研究,11(1),3-28。\n林巧敏(2004)。檔案應用研究之文獻探討。國立中央圖書館臺灣分館館刊,10(3),36-45。\n林巧敏(2012)。檔案應用服務。臺北市:文華。\n林威皓(2019)。台灣民主化過程中轉型正義的分析。國立政治大學國家發展研究所碩士論文,已出版,臺北市。\n林思妙(2013)。我國政府資訊公開法制之研究。國立中山大政治學研究所碩士論文,已出版,高雄市。\n林淑娟(2005)。論我國國家機密保護法兼論美國國家安全資訊命令。立法院院聞,33(4),79-97。\n林秋燕、連秀芬(2020)。政治檔案條例立法之解析與影響。檔案半年刊,19(1),4-23。\n邱玉鳳(2005)。各主題國家檔案開放應用成果分析。檔案季刊,4(3),57-67。\n柳嘉信(2014)。西班牙的轉型正義─從「選擇遺忘」到「歷史記憶」。台灣國際研究季刊,10(2),83-105。\n紀俊臣、紀冠宇(2018)。促進轉型正義條例的法律保留爭議與行政執行瑕疵。中國地方自治,71(3),3-16。\n國家人權博物館(2018a)。不義遺址資料庫。檢自https://hsi.nhrm.gov.tw/home/zh-tw/history\n國家人權博物館(2018b)。人權館邀請史塔西檔案局長、我國檔管局長與國內學者專家進行座談交流。檢自https://www.nhrm.gov.tw/information_220_84227.html\n國家人權博物館(2018c)。補償卷宗開放應用專區。檢自https://www.nhrm.gov.tw/content_366.html\n國家人權博物館(2020c)。人權館簡介。檢自https://www.nhrm.gov.tw/content_222.html\n張文貞(2005)。新興民主的憲政改造:國際視野與台灣觀點。臺北市:行政院研究發展考核委員會。\n張勝評、張錫俊(2015)。南韓光州5‧18紀念基金會暨人權相關文化設施考察報告。檢自https://report.nat.gov.tw/ReportFront/PageSystem/reportFileDownload/C10402907/001\n陳鈺馥、黃欣柏(民 109 年 2 月 29 日)。政治檔案蔡英文限國安局一個月解密。自由時報電子報。檢自https://news.ltn.com.tw/\n陳昱齊(2018)。檔案開放與轉型正義:實務運作的檢討與建議。臺灣史料研究,6,25-55。\n陳銘祥(2004)。論國家檔案開放應用與個人隱私。檔案季刊,3(1),67-80。\n湯德宗、王榮賓、賴勇全(2009)。政府資訊公開法改進之研究。法務部委託之結案報告。臺北市:中央研究院法律學研究所。\n黃鈺婷(2016)。我國個人隱私保護對於檔案開放應用影響之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所碩士論文,已出版,臺北市。\n萬文隆(2004)。深度訪談在質性研究中的應用。生活科技教育月刊,37(4),17-23。\n葉虹靈(2012)。轉型多年後,還要追尋正義嗎?-從西班牙與巴西談起。司法改革雜誌,92,52-57。doi:10.30138/SFGGZJ.201210.0019\n葉志清(2014)。論政治類檔案研究倫理。檔案半年刊,13(3),41-50。\n葉耀元(2016)。為什麼台灣需要「促進轉型正義條例」?。檢自https://www.viewpointtaiwan.com/focus/為什麼台灣需要「促進轉型正義條例」?/\n廖福特(2002)。歐洲人權公約-世界第一個有強制力的人權條約。司法改革雜誌,38,26-29。\n廖福特、陳雪琴(2012)。台灣與聯合國兩人權公約接軌之檢討。新世紀智庫論壇,60,20-24。\n廖彩惠(2007)。我國檔案法立法過程之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所碩士論文,已出版,臺北市。\n潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究理論與應用。臺北市:心理出版社。\n潘競桓、李長晏、許耀明、于馨媛、林佳鴻、吳嘉恬(2009)。我國政府資訊再利用之法制化研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託之結案報告(RDEC-RES-097-019),臺北市:行政院研究發展考核委員會。\n蔡漢賢、李明政(2004)。社會福利新論。臺北市:松慧。\n蔡季勳(2012)。萬洞穿心的《個資法》。檢自https://www.tahr.org.tw/news/1126\n蔡寬裕(2018)。從二二八到白色恐怖—談國家暴力與轉型正義。新世紀智庫論壇,81,17-21。\n檔案管理局 (2006)。機關檔案應用服務作業指引(修正版)。新北市:檔案管理局。\n聯合國公約與宣言檢索系統(2019a)。《公民與政治權利國際公約》。檢自https://www.un.org/zh/documents/treaty/files/A-RES-2200-XXI-2.shtml\n聯合國公約與宣言檢索系統(2019b)。《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》。檢自https://www.un.org/zh/documents/treaty/files/A-RES-2200-XXI.shtml\n薛理桂(2001)。我國檔案管理之困境與突破。國立中央圖書館台灣分館館刊,7(3),64-70。\n薛理桂(2004)。檔案學導論。臺北市:五南。\n薛化元(2016)。轉型正義的範圍及檔案開放問題。國史研究通訊, 11,4-9。\n薛化元(民 106 年 7 月 15 日)。解嚴30年的歷史再定位。上報。檢自https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=20873\n藍博洲(2000)。台灣白色恐怖帶給受害者家族的苦痛與悲哀。海峽評論,117,53-58。\n蘇瑞鏘(2013)。強人威權黨國體制與戰後臺灣政治案件。輔仁歷史學報,30,167-213。\n蘇瑞鏘(2016)。解除言論自由的枷鎖-「100行動聯盟」廢除「刑法第100條」的抗爭。檔案半年刊,15(1),32-45。\n蘇瑞鏘(2016)。二二八及白色恐怖轉型正義研究的回顧與展望—以《記憶與遺忘的鬥爭:臺灣轉型正義階段報告》為中心。國史研究通訊,11,10-22。\nAmanda C. Strauss.(2015) Treading the ground of contested memory: archivists and\nthe human rights movement in Chile. Archival Science; Dordrech.15(4), 369-397.doi: 10.1007/s10502-014-9223-3\nBeate Rudolf. (2016). Human Rights in Germany - A View from Germany`s National Human Rights Institution. International Journal of Legal Information. 44.1, 50–58. doi:10.1017/jli.2016.7\nCentro Documental de la Memoria Histórica. (2019). Historia. Retrieved from http://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/cultura/areas/archivos/mc/archivos/cdmh/presentacion/historia.html\nCercador d`Informació i Documentació Oficials. (2020). Legislació. Retrieved from http://cido.diba.cat/legislacio/997706/ley-522007-de-26-de-diciembre-por-la-que-se-reconocen-y-amplian-derechos-y-se-establecen-medidas-en-favor-de-quienes-padecieron-persecucion-o-violencia-durante-la-guerra-civil-y-la-dictadura-jefatura-del-estado\nCouncil of Europe. (1949). Statute of the Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/001\nCouncil of Europe. (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=\nEuropapress. (2018, June 1). Pedro Sánchez, nuevo presidente del Gobierno. Europapress. Retrieved from https://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-rajoy-pierde-mocion-censura-pedro-sanchez-sera-nuevo-presidente-gobierno-20180601113458.html\nFederal commissioner for the records of the state security service of the former german democratic republic Official Website. Retrieved from https://www.bstu.de/en/\nGeoffrey Robinson. (2014). Break the rules, save the records: human rights archives and the search for justice in East Timor. Archival Science; Dordrecht. 14, 323-343.\nHuman Rights Working Group. (2016). Basic Principles on the role of Archivists and Records Managers in support of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ICA%20HRWG%20Basic%20Principles_endorsed%20by%20PCOM_2016_Sept_English.pdf\nIan E. Wilson. (2012). "Peace, order and good government": archives in society. Archival Science; Dordrecht. 12, 235-244.\nInternational Council on Archives. (2016). Section on Archives and Human Rights - SAHR (previously HRWG). Retrieved from https://www.ica.org/en/about-archives-and-human-rights\nKarsten Jedlitschka. (2012). The Lives of Others: East German State Security Service`s Archival Legacy. The American Archivist. 75(1), 81-108.\nLa Moncloa. (2019). Declaración institucional de Pedro Sánchez con motivo de la exhumación de los restos de Francisco Franco. Retrieved from: https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/actividades/Paginas/2019/241019-ps-declaracion.aspx\nMichael Cook. (2006). Professional ethics and practice in archives and records\nmanagement in a human rights context. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 27(1), 1-15.doi: 10.1080/00039810600691205\nMichelle Caswell. (2014a). Defining human rights archives: introduction to the special double issue on archives and human rights. Archival Science. 14, 207-213.\nMichelle Caswell. (2014b) Toward a survivor-centered approach to records documenting human rights abuse: lessons from community archives. Archival Science; Dordrecht.14(3-4), 307-322.doi: 10.1007/s10502-014-9220-6\nMagdalena Abel & Henry L. Roediger. (2015) Collective memory: a new arena of cognitive study. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 19 (7),359-361.\nMarta Lucia Giraldo Lopera. (2017) Archives, human rights and memory. A review of international academic literature. Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología; Medellín.40(2), 125-144. doi:10.17533/udea.rib.v40n2a02\nNatalia Junquera. (2013,October 5). La promesa que Rajoy sí cumplió El Gobierno deroga de facto la ley de Memoria al dejarla sin fondos. El País. Retrieved from: https://elpais.com/\nNelson Mandela Museum. (2020). The Legacy. Retrieved from: https://www.nelsonmandelamuseum.org.za/history/the-legacy\nPARES. (2020). Presentación. Retrieved from: http://pares.mcu.es/victimasGCFPortal/staticContent.form?viewName=presentacion\nSouth Africa Government.(2018). History. Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/about-sa/history\nSouth Africa History Archive.(2019). About The South African History Archive. Retrieved from: https://www.saha.org.za/about_saha.htm\nThe May 18 Memorial Foundation.(2020). History. Retrieved from http://eng.518.org/sub.php?PID=0201\nUnited Nations.(2015a). History of the United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/sections/history/history-united-nations/index.html\nUnited Nations.(2015b). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html\nUnited Nations.(2015c). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
107155022
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107155022
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
502201.pdf6.02 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.