兩岸觀光管理法律比較分析研究

Abstract

摘 要\n我國觀光法律制度之肇始是在1969由交通部公佈「發展觀光條例」，該條例迄今約50年歷經10次修正，近十幾年均未做整體修正; 而大陸是在2013年頒布「中華人民共和國旅遊法」，並在2016年做第1次部分條文修正，兩岸觀光法律規定不盡相同，但兩岸旅遊交流頻繁，有對兩岸觀光法律比較分析之動機\n本論文研究是想嚐試先揭開兩岸觀光旅遊現況，再透過文獻分析與比較法學分析方法研究兩岸觀光法律建置與法律執行面，繼而就兩岸之旅行業(者)、風景區(景區)及水域(海水浴場)等比較重要的觀光法律課題進行法規範比較分析，期以對台灣觀光行政管理制度建立較完整之法規範，謹將本論文研究結果摘要如下\n一、 兩岸觀光法律制度有比較參考之價值:大陸《旅遊法》是2013年公告施實，目前尚無重大之缺失，而我國觀光法條是比較早期之法律，多數法條條文已過時，我國觀光單位似可再參考大陸「旅遊法」再進行「全盤整體」法規修正建制法制度。\n二、 我國現在是調整修正觀光法律制度適當時機:台灣自2008年7月陸客來臺觀光正式開放，來台旅客之成長趨勢為迄2015年來臺旅客已逾千萬人次，惟自今(2017)年大陸觀光客預期將減少，此時正是檢討台灣觀光法律制度之最適時機，建議台灣應趁休養生息之際，健全台灣觀光法制度與營運秩序。\n三、 兩岸觀光主管機關應持續交流建立兩岸旅遊制度:自2008年7月正式開放大陸觀光團赴台灣旅遊迄今(2016年)近8年，雙方應持續建置完整之管理法規，從經營管理與建置營運秩序法規，乃至陸客車禍就醫、保險、脫團…等均已有完善之管理流程(標準SOP); 故建議兩岸雙方政府應在既有基礎下繼續和協發展。\n四、 兩岸觀光主管機關應研究修法減少相互管制之法律規定:建議大陸旅遊市場時機成熟後，台灣對陸客應回歸一般國際旅客對待，俾符合全球各國旅遊市場之操作。即建議兩岸應更加配合雙方既有之開放自由旅遊市場之作為。\n五、 我國旅行業管理權可以參大陸下放地方政府管理:建議交通部觀光局應有修改旅行業為屬地管理原則，即由地方管理，雖因長期未被地方接受，但仍不宜長期不做修法之規劃，即應修正發展觀光條例及旅行業管理規則規原由中央政管理旅行業改變由地方政府監督管理。\n六、 旅行業之債權人聲請強制執行保證金者，建議應以旅客為限:依民法一般法理，旅行社之債權人均得聲請旅行業之財產強制執行，實現其債權。但觀光行政法規特別設立保證金是用以保證出團旅客權益所設計，似不宜用於解決其他透過司法之債務清償用途，故建議以特別法優於普通法原則，再修正「發展觀光條例」條文為「限旅行業保證金全部償還受損旅客後有剩餘款者，由交通部觀光局退回旅行業或法院強制執行之用。\n七、 陸客脫團處扣繳旅行業保證金制度，宜檢討廢止:此為開放陸客來臺觀光初期所設計法制，但就觀光行政法律架構似有待檢討其法律正當性，因陸客滯留台灣似應屬出入境管法律規範體制，而非規範在觀光行政法體制，而處分主體為旅行業亦有欠法律公平性，因旅行業非違法行為者、又無警察境管權，故該法律設計有嚴重之疏漏，建議適時修正。\n八、 旅行業「專業經理人」法律規定建議廢除:近年網路(虛擬)旅行社盛行，且借牌經理人時有所聞，建議隨時空環境改變而修正檢討發展觀光條例條文廢除旅行業需設置專業經理人。\n九、 台灣對觀光保育費用收取應專款專用:建議我國對觀光保育費之費率訂定後，應由該管目的事業主管機關專款專用，不宜先繳回中央財政局即財政(主計)單位，此是目前台灣之行政部門之困境，當中央統籌掌握保育費收入，就失去該法律立法目的。\n十、 建議交通部觀光局與保險局應儘速解決不適宜之保險負擔:立法委員提出增加水域經營業者購買「傷害保險」部分，而目前市場上並沒有此種保單對外販售，造成相關行政執行單位未能執行，行政機關明知依該無法執行之法條(發展觀光條例第60條)，又另在「水域遊憩活動管理辦法」第10條增訂有關涉及應投保傷害保險事項之子法。故此法律雖規定課予業者義務負擔(替遊客買傷害險)，但業者卻無法執行之法律效果，故建議中央主管機關(交通部觀光局)應儘速與保險局提案修法。\n關鍵詞: 觀光;旅遊;旅行社; 觀光保育費

Abstract\nThe Ordinance on the Development of Tourism" was promulgated by the Ministry of Communications in 1969 and it is the origination of tourist law system in Taiwan. The Ordinance has been amended ten times in about fifty years to date but none of those amendments has been made in the past decade, while the mainland enacted the "Chinese People Republic of China Travel Law" and amended the first part of the Provisions in 2016. Although cross-strait tourism laws and regulations are not the same, frequent cross-Strait tourism exchanges have motivated comparative analysis of the cross-Strait tourism law.\n\nThis thesis explores the current situation in cross-strait tourism. ,and then to study the legal construction and legal enforcement of cross-Strait tourism laws through literature analysis and comparative analysis. It conducts a normative analysis of the important legal issues in tourism, by analyzing comparatively across the Strait, first the tourist legislations and law enforcement, then the tourist industries, the scenic areas and the ocean beaches, with the goal of establishing a more complete set of legal norms for tourist administrative and management system in Taiwan. The main research results are summarized as follows:\n\n1. Tourism legal systems across the strait have cross-referencing values\nThe “Tourism Law” of Mainland was announced and implemented in 2013, and has not shown major deficiencies. In contrast, Taiwan’s counterpart is relatively old, and most of its codes and ordinances are outdated. Taiwan’s tourism administration could look at Mainland’s “Tourism Law” and overhaul its legal system.\n\n2. This is an appropriate time to change the legal system for Taiwan\nTaiwan officially opened up to Mainland tourists in July 2008, and visits from Mainland since had accumulated to more than 10 million person-times in 2015. The number of tourists from Mainland is expected to decline in 2017. It is thus opportune time to review the legal system in tourism. The recommendation is to use this down time, to build a sound legal system and operation procedures for Taiwan tourism. \n\n3. The tourism authorities across the strait should continue to communicate on and build up the cross-strait tourism system. \nIt has been almost eight years since officially opening up to Mainland tourist groups in July 2008. Two sides should continue to build toward a complete set of management regulations. From business management, operation rules and procedures, to medical treatment for tourist in car accident, insurance, absconding tourists, there exist already ideal operation procedures. The recommendation therefore is the two governments should continue to develop and revise the current system, harmoniously and on the basis of the existing foundation.\n\n4. The two tourism authorities should consider mutually reducing restrictive laws.\nWhen the Mainland tourism market condition is ripe, Taiwan should give Mainland tourists the same treatment as the general international tourists, to be consistent with the practice in global tourism markets. It is recommended that two sides should cooperate further on the existing free market functioning.\n \n5. Follow Mainland’s approach to delegate the supervision of the tourism industry to the local governments. \nIt is recommended that the Tourism Bureau, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, should place the tourism industry under the principle of local supervision and make the local government the supervising agent. In long term, it is inappropriate not to plan for changing the law, tough such change has long been ill received by local governments. Tourism development ordinances and tourism regulations should be revised to have tourism industry supervised and regulated by local governments instead of the central government. \n\n6. Petitions to access the travel agent guarantee deposit fund from industry liability claimants should be limited to travelers.\nAccording to the general principle of the civil law, any liability claimant of a travel agency can petition to access the guarantee deposit fund, to exercise the right of a claimant. However, the specific tourism regulations to establish travel agency guarantee deposit fund were designed to protect the rights of tour group dropouts. It seems inappropriate to use the deposit fund to settle other legal repayment obligations. It is recommended that specific law should take precedence over common law principle, and the stipulation in the Tourism Development Ordinance should be revised as “ the remaining of the guarantee deposit fund, after paying the victim tourists, are returned from the Tourism Bureau to the tour industry or the court for law enforcement.”\n\n7. The current system for the Office of Mainland Tourist Absconders to withhold guarantee deposit should be reviewed and abolished. \nThis system was designed for the early stage, when Taiwan began to open up to mainland tourists. However, its legal legitimacy, from the perspective of tourism administration framework, is in need of review. Mainland tourists lingering in Taiwan seems to be a domain of immigration administrative law system, not tourism administrative law system. Also, tourism industry as a main recipient of punitive actions lacks fairness, because the industry is not the law breaker and does not have the law enforcement power of police. The current legal design thus has serious omissions and shortcomings. It should be rectified in due time.\n\n8. The requirement for the travel industry to have “professional manager” should be abolished\nIn recent years, online virtual travel agencies have become popular. There are also occasional incidents of a manager borrowing license from others. It is recommended that, as time and environment change, the Tourism Development Ordinance be reviewed, and the requirement that the industry needs “professional manager” be removed. \n\n9. The revenue collected from tourism conservation fee should be earmarked for tourism\nIt is recommended that, after the tourism conservation fee is set, the collected revenue goes directly to the government agencies in charge of the legislative purposes of the fee, instead of the Bureau of Finance working as the master in finance. This is a Taiwan’s current administrative quandary — the legislative purposes of collecting the fee may be lost, when the central government controls and coordinates the uses of the revenue. \n\n10. It is recommended that the Tourism Bureau and the Insurance Bureau promptly resolve the inappropriate insurance burden\nLegislators have enlarged the portion of the law requiring aquatic business operators to buy “injury insurance” for tourists. However, currently such insurance contracts are not available for sale in the market. Consequently, the relevant administrative units have been unable to enforce the law. In addition, the administrative agencies know full well that they are dealing with an unenforceable law (Tourism Development Ordinance, Title 60), yet they added sub-laws concerning the injury insurance requirement to Title 10 of “The Measures in Aquatic Recreational Activities Management”. The law has the effect of assigning the obligation of buying injury insurance to the business owner, who has no way to fulfill the obligation. It is thus recommended that the central administrative authority (Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communications) and the Insurance Bureau propose amendments to the law in a timely fashion. \n \nKeywords: Tourism ; Travel ; Travel agent; tourism conservation fee