DSpace Community: 法學院碩士在職專班
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/2283
法學院碩士在職專班2024-03-19T05:52:40Z從慰撫金判決思考以寵物保險分散飼主風險之可能性
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147184
題名: 從慰撫金判決思考以寵物保險分散飼主風險之可能性; From the Solatium Judgment and Thinking about the Possibility of Using Pet Insurance to Diversify the Risks of Owners
Authors: 黃幼馨; Huang, Yu-Hsin
摘要: 動物在目前民法的規範之下屬於「物」,但近來因為動物保護觀念提升,家中所飼養的寵物,其地位也逐漸轉型,於是當寵物受到他人侵害,產生傷害或死亡時,飼主基於損害開始有向加害人請求賠償的動機,近來更進階到因為寵物的傷害、死亡,飼主對於失去寵物感到無法忍受,產生精神上的傷害,而主張要加害者賠償精神損害,即慰撫金。而現亦有判決亦將寵物認定為介於人與物之間的「獨立生命體」,認為寵物受到侵害,飼主因民法195條其他人格權法益受損,而有精神損害的求償權。惟現行體制下,多數學者雖認為其立意良好,但仍持反對意見,本文將從正反二意見中,嘗試從學說、實務之外,探討讓飼主可以從保險的補償來代替請求慰撫金的可能性。; Animals are classified as "Property" under the Civil law. However, due to the improvement of the concept of animal protection recently, the status of pets kept at home has gradually changed. Therefore, when pets are violated by others, resulting in injury or death, the owner starts to act based on the damage. There is a motive to seek compensation from the infringer. Recently, the pet owner feels unbearable to lose the pet due to the injury or death of the pet, which causes mental harm, and advocates that the injurer should compensate for the mental damage, that is, consolation money. Now there are also judgments that recognize pets as "independent living entities" between people and things, and believe that pets are infringed, and the owner has the right to claim mental damage due to damage to other legal interests of personal rights in Article 195 of the Civil Code. Although most scholars believe that its intentions are good, they still hold opposing opinions. This article will try to explore the possibility that owners can replace claims for solatium with insurance compensation from the perspective of both positive and negative opinions, in addition to theory and practice possibility.
描述: 碩士; 國立政治大學; 法學院碩士在職專班; 1089610342023-09-01T07:59:36Z生物特徵蒐集與利用制度之研究
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147183
題名: 生物特徵蒐集與利用制度之研究; A Study on the System of Biometric Data Collection and Use
Authors: 韋祿恩; Wei, Lu-En
摘要: 行政機關為履行各項行政任務並作成各種行政決定,須以一定資訊為據,從而有蒐集資料之需求,尤其生物辨識技術蔚為發展,以新興科技作為執法手段已成趨勢,惟國家在維護國家安全、社會秩序等公益目的下蒐用人民之生物特徵,卻未有完備之法律框架,恐侵害人民憲法第22條概括條款之人格權及資訊隱私權。另在現行積極國家運作之下,亦恐間接侵害個人之言論自由、集會遊行及受公平審判等權利。\r\n現行國家對於人民生物特徵之蒐用已不僅限於刑事偵查,更逐漸擴展至行政調查,並廣泛應用於各項行政任務中。惟既有之個人資料保護規範已不足以確保當事人之權益受充分保障,從而衍生出國家之蒐用行為之合法性及合憲性疑義,故有必要從基本權保障及個資保護之角度探討現行制度。\r\n本文選取美國、歐盟及英國之生物特徵制度作為觀察對象,從立法進程、監管機關、資料保護影響評估等層面進行分析與比較,以探求我國可借鏡之處。另透過「M-Police行動警察」及「校園使用生物辨識技術」兩個實務案例,審視我國實務上生物辨識之運用情形。最後,從法制面及政策面提出相關建議,以因應未來生物辨識技術所帶來之問題與挑戰。; In order to fulfill various administrative tasks and make diverse administrative decisions, the authorities concerned require specific information as a basis for their actions. As a result, there is demand for the collection of data. With the significant development of biometrics technology, the use of emerging technologies for law enforcement has become a trend. However, while the state employs the biometric data of individuals for the purposes of national security, social order, and other public interests, there is a lack of comprehensive legal framework. Therefore, it might infringe upon individuals` rights of personality and information privacy as outlined in Article 22 of the Constitution. Additionally, under the current proactive state operations, there is a concern that it might indirectly infringe upon individuals` rights of assembly, a fair trial, and freedom of speech.\r\nThe current state`s collection and use of individuals` biometric data, originally limited to criminal investigations, have gradually expanded to encompass administrative investigations and are extensively employed in various administrative tasks. However, the existing norms for personal data protection are insufficient to ensure the comprehensive safeguarding of the rights of the parties involved. As a result, doubts have arisen regarding the legitimacy and constitutionality of the state`s data collection practices. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the current system from the perspectives of fundamental rights safeguarding and personal data protection.\r\nThis article examines the biometric systems in the United States, European Union, and the United Kingdom, analyzing and comparing them from various angles, including legislative processes, supervisory authority, and data protection impact assessment. The goal is to identify aspects that could serve as valuable references. By examining two practical cases, \"M-Police\" and \" Campus Deployment of Biometrics Technology,\" this study assesses the practical application of biometric data in our country. Lastly, the article presents recommendations from legal and policy perspectives to address the challenges and issues that may arise from the use of biometric recognition technology in the future.
描述: 碩士; 國立政治大學; 法學院碩士在職專班; 1089610242023-09-01T07:59:35Z論保險契約之隱藏性義務
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147182
題名: 論保險契約之隱藏性義務; The Concealed Obligation in Insurance Contract terms
Authors: 藍家保; Lan, Chia-Pao
摘要: 保險契約是一個典型的附合契約,就消費者而言,因為極度複雜與特別的條款,使得要保人僅能接受保險人預定的條款規定。長久以來,此等附合契約內涵之不公平現象,可藉由內容控制原則加以衡平兩造雙方不平等的現象。一般保險契約原則上以基本條款加上除外條款組合而成,惟保險人為了控制危險的發生,另改以危險限制條款及約定義務條款包裝成特約條款來要求被保險人履行,始能獲得賠償。惟若當保險人欲藉由條款規定,將特定行為要求約定成為危險限制條款之方式呈現,並以此擴大其免責範圍時,此舉將加重消費者的義務,且令保險人自身應負的責任,進而逸脱。此項情況於人身保險及財產保險所在多有,不僅保險契約如此,任何附合性契約皆有可能產生此種現象。然此種不公平的現象,對於相對無法律基礎或是不具有相當專業的消費者而言,將使得原本弱勢的情況更加嚴重與無助。\n借鏡德國長久法律實務的演變下,上述不公平現象已逐漸透過法官造法、學說註釋及批判下,逐漸扭轉。從而歸納分析出此種不公平現象,並將之稱為「隱藏性義務」(德;Verfüllte Obliegenheit)。在我國保險實務上,對此狀況甚少著墨,判決實務上亦是鳳毛麟角。本文希冀能透過研究,將此類條款藉以梳理歸納,讓隱藏性義務所造成的不公平現象,更加釐清,以維消費者之權益。; Insurance contract is a typical adhesion contract, due to high specialty and complexity of Insurance terms, proposer can only accept the predetermined terms and conditions by the Insured. The inequities inherent in these contracts have long been balanced by the principle of content control, which creates inequality between the parties. However, in order to control the occurrence of perils, the insurer may require the insured to perform the contractual terms by packaging them with hazard limitation clauses and contractual service clauses in order to obtain compensation. However, if an insurer wants to expand its exclusion by making specific behavioral requirements in the form of hazard limitation clauses, this will increase the consumer`s obligation and further release the insurer from its own liability. This is a common occurrence in life and property insurance, not only in insurance contracts, but also in any contract of adhesion. However, this unfair phenomenon will make the disadvantaged situation even more serious and helpless for consumers who have no legal basis or are not very professional.\nThrough the evolution of Germany`s long-standing legal practice, the above unfair phenomenon has been gradually reversed through law-making by judges, doctrinal interpretation and criticism. This unfair phenomenon is summarized and analyzed as "Hidden Obligation" (German: Verfüllte Obliegenheit). In our insurance practice, little attention has been paid to this situation, and there are very few judgments in practice. In this paper, we hope to clarify the unfairness caused by the hidden obligation through the study of such clauses, so as to protect the rights of consumers.
描述: 碩士; 國立政治大學; 法學院碩士在職專班; 1089610232023-09-01T07:59:22Z我國仲裁法修法之探討—以聯合國貿易法委員會國際商事仲裁模範法為比較
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147181
題名: 我國仲裁法修法之探討—以聯合國貿易法委員會國際商事仲裁模範法為比較; A Studying of The Amendment Arbitration Law of R.O.C.—Comparing with UNCITRAL Model Law
Authors: 宋浩淵; Song, Hao-Yuan
摘要: 為配合工商業發展,於民國50年制定公布「商務仲裁條例」,於87 年經立法院修正通過,將商務仲裁條例修正為「仲裁法」後公佈施行。當時主要係參考1985年聯合國國際貿易法委員會所公布之「國際商務仲裁模範法」,稱模範法)及先進國家立法例。\n嗣後分別於民國91年修正第8條仲裁之規定、第54條仲裁機構設立及仲裁機構之組織授權內容、民國98年修正第7 條仲裁人消極資格、民國104年修正第47 條外國仲裁判斷效力,歷經三次條文的修正,但對於實務運作爭議性較大的仲裁容許性、仲裁人迴避、外國仲裁判斷定義、仲裁機構自治權等在內的問題猶未予以解決,就整體架構及體例而言,尚無重大調整。\n聯合國貿易法委員會於2006年第三十九屆會議通過最新修訂版『貿易法委員會國際商事仲裁模範法,附2006年通過的修正案』。主要目的是鼓勵各國在制定法律時,統一採納和施行模範法的內容,以確保在國際商事仲裁中的各項解釋能統一。\n近年來,由於國際貿易和商業關係變得更加相互依賴和緊密,許多國家的國內和國際仲裁法律得到了迅速的變化。在法律修訂和實踐方面,存在著各種各樣的國內和國際仲裁問題,需要進一步進行討論和研究。為有利於解決我國仲裁實務問題及營造臺灣成為模範法法域,提升我國際仲裁地位與利於吸引外資擬具「仲裁法修正草案」,主要參考模範法2006年修訂版本,其包含仲裁容許性、仲裁人迴避、仲裁保密、仲裁衡平原則、域外仲裁判斷定義、仲裁和解等問題,並新增賦予仲裁庭臨時保全措施與急速處置權。; In order to collaborate with industrial and commercial development, the Repub-lic of China (ROC) promulgated the first Commercial Arbitration Ordinance in 1961. In 1998, the ROC adjusted the title to the "Arbitration Law of the Republic of Chi-na." At that time, this law primarily drew inspiration from the "United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration" (referred to as the "Model Law") issued in 1985 by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, as well as legislation from advanced coun-tries.\nOver the years, the amendment process included several provisions. In 2002, Ar-ticle 8, concerning arbitration provisions, was amended. In 2009, changes were made to Article 7, which pertained to the disqualifications of arbitrators. In 2015, Article 47, addressing the validity of foreign arbitration judgments, underwent revisions. De-spite these three rounds of amendments, certain contentious issues in practical im-plementation, such as arbitrability, arbitrator challenges, the definition of foreign awards, and the autonomy of arbitration institutions, remained unresolved. Overall structure and style have not undergone major changes.\nThe Model Law was revised by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 2006, during its thirty-ninth session. The General Assembly recom-mended that all states give favorable consideration to enacting the revised articles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration when amend-ing or creating their laws. This Model Law was developed to address significant dis-crepancies in national arbitration laws.\nRecent developments in domestic and international arbitration law have rapidly evolved in numerous countries due to increased interdependence and closeness in international trade and commercial relationships. Various issues in both legal amendments and practices related to domestic and international arbitration require further discussions and research.\nWith the aim of resolving Taiwan`s arbitration practice issues, establishing Tai-wan as a model legal jurisdiction, enhancing Taiwan`s international arbitration stand-ing, and attracting foreign investment, a draft amendment to the Arbitration Law has been formulated. This draft primarily draws from the 2006 revisions of the Model Law, addressing Arbitrability, Challenge Procedure, Confidentiality of Arbitration, Amiable Composition, Definition of Foreign Award, Settlement,and newly granting Interim Measures and Preliminary Orders powers to the arbitral tribunal
描述: 碩士; 國立政治大學; 法學院碩士在職專班; 1079610552023-09-01T07:59:08Z