世界文化遺產法制:國際公約與國內法比較研究

Abstract

有視於許多珍貴人類文化資產或因全球化導致文化均質化，或因武裝衝突、發展觀光及環境惡化等因素，面臨毀壞甚至消失的危機，聯合國教科文組織和許多國際組織透過制定及締結國際公約喚起國際社群的關注，凝聚國際間的集體力量，帶動國際文化保護保存的合作，以維護文化的多樣性、推動文化對話及族群相互尊重包容。基於全世界對於文化資產保護的文化共識，1954年《海牙公約》制定至今已逾一甲子，《保護世界文化和自然遺產公約》至今也邁向近半世紀之久，我國1982年公布實施《文化資產保存法》，至今亦已有卅餘年。\n\n本論文研究目的在檢視國際公約有關文化保存保護的歷史發展，及我國現行文化保護保存法規與實務問題。採質性研究、個案研究法，將我國最高行政法院文化資產相關判決整理分析，期從研究發現中獲得文化保護行動的反思與我國修法的參考。\n\n研究發現我國文化法規整體規範尚未包含無形文化遺產的保護保存，此一部分亟待未來立法。此外，現行法規內容及文物分類與國際公約所行方式不同，另一方面，我國文化事務主管機關執行政策時所遇困難，可參酌國際公約與他國現行方式，本於我國文化資產特性與文化整體特色因應調整。除立法修法建議之外，本論文亦從個案分析與比較研究發現，我國對於文化資產保存的概念採物質取向，衍生文化物私權凌駕公權之上的衝突情況，若期文化永續發展，宜將「文化資產」概念轉化為「文化遺產」觀點，從更高的文化哲學層面執行我國文化事務的全面保護保存政策。

Regarding the destruction of many precious human culture, either due to globalization to cultural homogenization, or because of armed conflict, environmental degradation and other factors, the arouse concerns and collective strength of international cultural cooperation led to maintain cultural diversity, promoting cultural dialogue and mutual respect for ethnic coexistence. Based on the world`s cultural consensus for the protection of cultural heritage, firstly the 1954 Hague Convention and consequently the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention, both have built up a well-organised system for culture preservation and conservation. In Taiwan, The Culture Property Preservation Act has also been implemented in 1982. \n\nThis paper explores historical development of the relevant international conventions on cultural preservation and protection as well as the existing cultural legislation and practical issues in Taiwan. Drawing upon case studies as qualitative research method, the analysis of twelve cases selected from the highest administrative court judgments illuminates currently controvercial issues and leads to make suggestions of what action of amending should be considered to empower authorities and provide more effective administration to enhance domestic culture policies.\n\nThe result of analysis indicates that the intangible cultural norms and regulations have not been viewed as an important issue and legislation for intangible cultural heritage should be put on top priority in national culture development policies. The difficulties encountered while implementing policies of cultural affairs shed lights on central and local hieracheical institutions that the realm of autonomy should be distinctively clarified so that administrative agency could be helpful to solve conflicts and diversities. In addition, the case study and comparison also found that collective rights on the preservation of cultural assets were derived overriding private rights. However, if the sustainable development of culture would be expected then a balance between collective and provate rights on cultural affairs should be taken as legal norms