學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 政黨對於國會政治之形成—美國民主法理論之啟示
Partisan Ordering of Parliamentary Politics in Taiwan: An Extension of Law of Democracy作者 易大為
Yih, Dah-Wei貢獻者 林佳和
Lin, Chia-Ho
易大為
Yih, Dah-Wei關鍵詞 民主法
政黨
國會
國會政治
立法院黨團
政黨自我管制
紀律
資深制
黨內民主
政黨自治
結社自由
司法審查
Law of democracy
Political party
Parliament
Parliamentary politics
Caucus
Self-regulation of political party
Discipline
Seniority system
Intraparty democracy
Party autonomy
Freedom of association
Judicial review日期 2021 上傳時間 10-Feb-2022 13:07:34 (UTC+8) 摘要 本文嘗試從美國民主法理論視角觀察政黨與國會之相互關係，探討政黨—尤其主要政黨—是如何運用包含政府管制與政黨自我管制之規範形式形成國會政治，俾進行系統性制度考察暨總體規範理論檢討。具體而言，本文首先於實然層面開展系統性制度考察。藉由爬梳憲法文本及釋憲實務見解，本文指出對於政黨規範性之理解，除了結社自由之權利保障，亦不可忽略整體憲政權力安排、代議民主原則，以及經由憲法變遷所漸次形成的民主代表性結構轉變。本文復透過盤點分析含括國家法與政黨自我規範之制度文本，嘗試描繪臺灣當前主要政黨對於國會政治所形構的整體管制圖像；另藉由與政治圈內人之訪談方法，本文進一步釐清規範與實踐可能存在之落差。此外，經由法院裁判內容分析，本文並發現我國法院不僅大抵採取「實體事項予以尊重，程序事項加以審查」的態度，面對國家法與政黨自我規範競合之處理基本上恪遵國家法優先之裁判原則。其次，本文於應然層面進行總體規範理論暨司法審查方法之檢討。本文指出，鑑於主要政黨於代議民主政治秩序中之特殊角色扮演，應有必要自關照於政黨政治實踐之視角重新形塑政黨規範性內涵；於此，政黨三元理論及民主法結構觀點不唯提供了思考方向。就規範形式言，在肯認形構民主政治秩序之多元權威基礎上，本文認為政黨（尤其主要政黨）所作自我管制既非公權力行使，亦與單純結社自由之權利行使有間；毋寧，應將政黨自我規範理解為是由政黨—作為國家與社會間之中介組織—所發展出的複合性特殊民主規範，方能適切掌握主要政黨所為自我管制之規範意義。就規範內容言，基於維繫民主原則、分權制衡等憲政風險管理之思考，本文主張立法者應於國家法層次明定「黨團內部民主運作原則」；並認為我國現行規範採行所謂「資深制」容有改革必要。此外，本文亦針對包括國會紀律、政黨紀律與黨團紀律之紀律規範安排與適用提出幾點分析建議。最後，對於國家法與政黨自我規範衝突競合之解決，本文建議我國法院應揚棄國家法優位之單一裁判原則。取而代之地，除於困難案件中應以利益衡量法則個案認定政黨自我規範有無優先於國家法之實質正當性外，學說上提出將針對國家的民主憲法法轉化為具有針對政黨效力之嘗試，以及政黨三元理論、政黨管制之水力學原理等關照政黨政治運作實際之觀點不妨為我國法院提供了若干司法審查的思考路徑。
The thesis attempts to conduct a systematic investigation on the institution and theory of partisan ordering of parliamentary politics in Taiwan through exploring the interrelationship between major political parties and the parliament, and examining how partisan-self regulation has diversified and complicated the political order of parliamentary democracy from the perspective of the law of democracy. Specifically, this thesis begins with a systematic investigation of the system in practice. A thorough review of the R.O.C. Constitution and J.Y. Interpretations shows that freedom of association is not the entirety of the normativity of political party; in fact, the normativity of political party should also involve the overall arrangement of constitutional power, the principle of representative democracy, and the structural change of political representation formed through constitutional changes. This article then attempts to illustrate the overall image of the current partisan ordering of parliamentary politics in Taiwan through normative analysis on legal materials including state laws and partisan rules, and further compare it with the empirical findings. Interviews with political insiders indicate that there is a possible gap between norms and practices, whereas the content analysis of court decisions suggests that courts in Taiwan generally adopt the attitude of "respecting substantive matters and reviewing procedural matters," and that the principle of the trump of state laws is mostly observed when dealing with the conflict of state laws and partisan rules.Secondly, this thesis evaluates the theory of partisan ordering of parliamentary politics as well as the corresponding methodology for judicial review. Considering that major political parties are key players of democratic politics, this thesis believes that it is more than necessary to reshape the normativity of political party from the perspective of the practice of party politics. The theory of tripartite formulation of political party and the structural theory of law of democracy, for example, may shed new light on the regulatory roles of the state, the courts, and the major political parties. By theorizing a pluralistic account of democratic authorities, this research argues that partisan self-regulation (especially by major political parties) is neither the exercise of power, nor that of the party’s associational right; rather, we should view partisan rules as a special partisan ordering of democracy to genuinely reflect political parties’ role as intermediaries between the civil society and the state, and to properly grasp the normative significance and implications of such rules. Furthermore, this thesis advocates that legislators should define clearly the "principle of intra-parliamentary party democracy " in state law, and that there is an urgent need to reevaluate the seniority system for the sake of constitutional risk management such as ensuring the effectivity of principle of democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances. In addition, this paper also provides suggestions for the application of disciplinary norms including legislative discipline, party discipline and caucus discipline. Finally, to resolve the conflict between state laws and partisan rules, the thesis suggests that Taiwanese courts abandon the single adjudication principle of the trump of the state law. Instead, in difficult cases, the principle of proportion should be adopted to determine whether or not partisan rules prevail over state laws. The theory of tripartite formulation of political party, the hydraulics and politics of party regulation, and other viewpoints concerning the practice of party politics may further provide some thoughts for judicial review.參考文獻 一、中文文獻（一）專書John H. Ely著，劉靜怡譯（2005），民主與不信任，臺北：商周。 [Ely, John H. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]林子儀、葉俊榮、黃昭元、張文貞（2019），憲法：權力分立，3版，臺北：新學林。吳信華（2018），憲法釋論，3版，臺北：三民。蕭文生（2004），國家法（I）：國家組織篇，臺北：元照。（二）專書論文Heinrich Triepel著，薩孟武譯（1979），政黨的發展，收於：薩孟武編，孟武自選文集，頁183-201，臺北：三民。[Triepel, Heinrich (1928), Die Staatsverfassung und die politischen Parteien, Berlin: O. Liebmann.]林春元（2020），司法審查、選舉制度與民主代表性—從司法院釋字第721號解釋談起，收於：蘇彥圖編，憲法解釋之理論與實務（十），頁533-588，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所。胡博硯（2020），政黨在民主國家中的角色—不分區立法委員角色作為討論重點，收於：陳新民教授六秩晉五壽辰文集編輯委員會編，法治國家的原理與實踐—陳新民教授六秩晉五壽辰文集，頁503-524，臺北：新學林。蔡宗珍（2004），憲法、國家與政黨—從德國經驗探討政黨法制化之理論與實踐，收於：憲法與國家（一），頁135-224，臺北：元照。蔡宗珍（2004），我國憲政體制下政黨的定位、發展及其危機，收於：憲法與國家（一），頁179-224，臺北：元照。蘇彥圖（2007），在權利與結構之間：初探美國民主法學的認同與典範，收於：許志雄、蔡茂寅、周志宏編，現代憲法的理論與現實—李鴻禧教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集，頁193-233，臺北：元照。蘇彥圖（2021），政黨管制作為憲政工程，收於：研之得法—中央研究院法律學研究所成立十週年文集，頁587-625，臺北：元照。（三）期刊論文王業立（2002），國會中的政黨角色與黨團運作，月旦法學雜誌，86期，頁82-96。王韻茹（2013），政黨爭議的法律性質與爭訟，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁19-25。林佳和（2013），撤銷黨籍、當然喪失不分區立委資格？九月政爭的政黨考，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁26-34。林佳和（2015），政黨、政治與民主—「九月政爭」雖未蓋棺、但先論定，台灣法學雜誌，267期，頁1-3。林佳和（2017），憲法民主國原則的教條與挑戰，月旦法學雜誌，263期，頁24-39。林春元（2013），臺灣憲政體制與政黨政治下的權力分立，中研院法學期刊，12期，頁325-370。林超駿（2015），黨團協商、特殊立法機制與權力分立，月旦法學雜誌，246期，頁126-149。吳秦雯（2015），政黨自治與自律的界線，台灣法學雜誌，268期，頁9-14。陳淑芳（1999），國會議事規範之規範形式，政大法學評論，61期，頁87-108。陳淑芳（2002），國會改革五法實施之成效與檢討，月旦法學雜誌，85期，頁26-41。陳英鈐（2013），假處分定馬王憲政地位，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁3-8。陳英鈐（2014），黨內民主與民主深化—簡評馬王案判決/台北地院102訴3782判決，台灣法學雜誌，246期，頁177-181。陳英鈐（2015），亮票與議會自主—台灣高等法院高雄分院刑事判決101年上易字第1107號刑事判決評析，台灣法學雜誌，266期，頁39-49。陳英鈐（2015），擺盪於權力與規範下的政黨法制，台灣法學雜誌，267期，頁9-11。陳宏銘（2009），臺灣半總統制下的政黨關係—以民進黨執政時期為焦點，政治科學論叢，41期，頁1-56。陳忠五（2020），民事類實務導讀，台灣法學雜誌，392期，頁155-166。詹鎮榮（2005），黨內民主之憲法要求，月旦法學教室，36期，頁6-7。詹鎮榮（2016），總統、政黨與國會之相互關係—以政黨影響國政之憲法基礎及界限為中心，憲政時代，41卷3期，頁421-456。黃昭元（1999），國會改革五法簡介，台灣本土法學雜誌，1期，頁182-197。黃仁俊（2016），開除黨籍與司法審查—黨內民主原則的再出發，東吳法律學報，27卷4期，頁101-132。黃仁俊（2017），德國政黨規範理論的轉變—以政黨概念為中心，中研院法學期刊，21期，頁261-313。廖元豪（2013），開除國會議長是違憲？，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁9-13。蘇彥圖（2012），關於政治反托拉斯理論的三個故事，東吳公法論叢，5卷，頁541-558。蘇彥圖（2013），兩種紀律間的戰爭：一個關於臺灣當前黨國分際爭議的敘事與評論，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁14-18。（四）碩博士論文游雨鈴（2000），國會黨團之研究—以德國法為中心兼論我國立院黨團，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。蘇慧婕（2003），論國會議員產生方式之規範及憲法界限—以人民的選舉自由為中心，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。盧拱晟（2011），以自由委任觀點論黨團強制與黨團協商，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。侯世傑（2013），一致政府與分立政府下之國會黨團運作—以政黨輪替2000-2012年經驗為範圍，國立臺灣師範大學政治學研究所碩士論文。呂政諺（2017），民主原則規範性困境之解決—透過論辯倫理學建構激進審議民主的嘗試，國立政治大學法律學系碩士班碩士論文。（五）政府委託報告蘇彥圖（2013），政黨作為選舉民主的管制者：一個以候選人選任之政黨管制為中心的民主法理論檢討，委託機關：科技部。蘇彥圖（2016），超越「代議委任之分裂」：關於台灣國會混合選制下之政治代表的規範理論重建，委託機關：科技部。林佳和（2019），追討不當黨產實體暨程序法研究，委託機關：不當黨產處理委員會。二、英文文獻（一）專書Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Eilperin, Juliet. 2007. Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship is Poisoning the House of Representatives. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Ely, John H. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Epstein, Leon D. 1989. Political Parties in the American Mold. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Fell, Dafydd. 2012. Party Politics in Taiwan. NY, New York: Routledge.Fell, Dafydd and Hsiao, Hsin-Huang Michael. 2019. Taiwan Studies Revisited. NY, New York: Routledge.Hacker, Jacob S. and Pierson, Paul. 2006. Off Center: The Republican Revolution & the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Hofstadter, Richard 1970. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States Vol. 2. 1780-1840. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Issacharoff, Samuel, Karlan, Pamela S., Pildes, Richard H., and Nathaniel Persily, 2016. The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. 5th ed. St. Paul: MN: Foundation Press.Jacobs, J. Bruce. 2012. Democratizing Taiwan. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Key Jr., V.O. 1964. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. NY, New York City: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.Madison, James. 2006. The Federalist No.10. NY, New York: Barnes & Noble.Maskell, Jack. 2013. Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, RL31382. Congressional Research Service.Maskell, Jack. 2015. Qualifications of Members of Congress. R41946. Congressional Research Service.McDonalds, Michael P. and Samples, John, eds. 2006. The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Nivola, Pietro S. and Brady, David W., eds. 2006. Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Cause of America’s Polarized Politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Overton, Spencer. 2006. Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression. NY: New York City: W. W. Norton & Company.The Future of the Voting Rights Act (David L. Epstein, et al. eds., 2006).Posner, Richard A. 2005. Law, Pragmatism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Rosenblum, Nancy. 2010. On the Side of Angels: A Political Theory of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party Government. Ballwin, MO: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Shapiro, Ian. 2006. The State of Democracy Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Straus, Jacob R. 2011. Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, Congressional Research Service RL30764.Wood, Gordon. 1998. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press.Wolfe, Alan. 2007. Does American Democracy Still Work? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Washington, George. 2014. Farewell Address. Pp. 205-219 in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, edited by James D. Richardson. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.（二）專書論文Müller, Wolfgang and Ulrich Sieberer. 2006. Party Law. in Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Richard S. Katz and William J. Crotty, illustrated edition, 435-445. CA: Sage Publications Ltd.Pildes, Richard. 2011. Political Parties and Constitutionalism, in Comparative Constitutional Law, edited by Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Tushnet, Mark. 2009. State Action in 2020, Pp. 198-214 in The Constitution in 2020, edited by Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.（三）期刊論文El-Haj, Tabatha Abu. 2011. Changing the People: Legal Regulation and American Democracy. New York University Law Review 86(1): 102-166.Garrett, Elizabeth. 2002. Is the Party Over? Courts and the Political Process. Supreme Court Review: 95-152.Gerken, Heather K. 2005. Second-Order Diversity and Disaggregated Democracy. Harvard Law Review 118: 1099-1195.Gerken, Heather K. 2005. Dissenting by Deciding. Stanford Law Review 57: 101-160.Greene, Abner S. 2012. Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Issacharoff, Samuel, and Pildes, Richard. 1998. Politics as Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process. Stanford Law Review 50: 643-717.Issacharoff, Samuel, and Ortiz, Daniel R. 1999. Governing through Intermediaries. Virginia Law Review 85: 1627-1670.Issacharoff, Samuel. 2001. Private Parties with Public Purposes: Political Parties, Associational Freedoms, and Partisan Competition. Columbia Law Review 101(2): 274-313.Issacharoff, Samuel. 2007. Fragile Democracies. Harvard Law Review 120: 1405-1467.Karlan, Pamela S. 1997. Just Politics? Five Not So Easy Pieces of the 1995 Term. Houston Law Review 34: 289-314.Karlan, Pamela S. 1999. Constitutional Law, the Political Process, and the Bondage of Discipline. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 32: 1185-1197.Klarman, Michael J. 1997. Majoritarian Judicial Review: The Entrenchment Problem. Georgetown Law Journal 85: 491-553.Kang, Michael S. 2005. The Hydraulics of Party Regulation. Iowa Law Review 91: 131-187.Karvonen, Lauri. 2007. Legislation on Political Parties: A Global Comparison. Party Politics 13(4): 437-455.Levinson, Daryl J. and Pildes, Richard. 2006. Separation of Parties, Not Powers. Harvard Law Review 119; NYU Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 06-07, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 131: 1, 26. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=890105Lowenstein, Daniel H. 1993. Associational Rights of Major Political Parties: A Skeptical Inquiry. Texas Law Review 71: 1741-1792.Mersel, Yigal. 2006. The Dissolution of Political Parties: The Problem of Internal Democracy. International Journal of Constitutional Law 4(1): 84-113.Ortiz, Daniel R. 2000. Duopoly versus Autonomy: How the Two-Party System Harms the Major Parties. Columbia Law Review 100(3): 753-774.Persily, Nathaniel. 2001. Toward a Functional Defense of Political Party Autonomy. New York University Law Review 76: 750-824.Pildes, Richard H. 2011. Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America. California Law Review 99: 273-334.Rosenblum, Nancy. 2000. Political Parties as Membership Groups. Columbia Law Review 100(3): 813-844.Schleicher, David. 2006. “Politics as Markets” Reconsidered: Natural Monopolies, Competitive Democratic Philosophy and Primary Ballot Access in American Elections. Supreme Court Economic Review 14: 163-220.Su, Yen-tu. 2016. The Partisan Ordering of Candidacies and the Pluralism of the Law of Democracy: A Case of Taiwan, Electoral Law Journal 15(1): 31-47.Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global. Sydney Law Review 30: 375-411.Tuttle, Alonzo H. 1903. Limitations Upon the Power of the Legislature to Control Political Parties and Their Primaries. Michigan Law Review 1(6): 466-495.三、德文文獻Bergsträsser, Ludwig/Mommsen, Wilhelm (1965), Geschichte der politischen Partieien in Deutschland, 11. Aufl., München: G. Olzog.Downs, Anthony (1968), Ökonomische Theorie der Demokratie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Köhler, Jan (2006), Parteien im Wettbewerb: zu den Wettbewerbschancen nicht-etablierter politischer Parteien im Rechtssystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Klein, Hans H. (2006), Das Parlament im Verfassungsstaat, 1. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Morlok, Martin/Schliesky, Utz /Wiefelspütz, Dieter (2016), Parlamentsrecht, 1. Aufl., Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Morlok, Martin (2003), Parteienrecht als Wettbewerbsrecht, in: Häberle/Morlok/Skouris (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Dimitris Th. Tsatsos zum 70. Geburtstag, Baden-Baden: Nomos, S. 408-447.Preuß, Hugo (1928), Reich und Länder: Bruchstücke eines Kommentars zur Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches, Berlin: Heymann.Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1993), Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, 7 erw. Aufl., Tübingen: Francke.Stier-Somlo, Fritz (1909), Reichsvereinsgesetz vom 19. April 1908, systematischer Kommentar, Stuttgart: Dt. Verlags-Anst.Triepel, Heinrich (1928), Die Staatsverfassung und die politischen Parteien, Berlin: O. Liebmann. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
106651045資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106651045 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 林佳和 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Chia-Ho en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 易大為 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yih, Dah-Wei en_US dc.creator (作者) 易大為 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yih, Dah-Wei en_US dc.date (日期) 2021 en_US dc.date.accessioned 10-Feb-2022 13:07:34 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 10-Feb-2022 13:07:34 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 10-Feb-2022 13:07:34 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0106651045 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/138944 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法律學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 106651045 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文嘗試從美國民主法理論視角觀察政黨與國會之相互關係，探討政黨—尤其主要政黨—是如何運用包含政府管制與政黨自我管制之規範形式形成國會政治，俾進行系統性制度考察暨總體規範理論檢討。具體而言，本文首先於實然層面開展系統性制度考察。藉由爬梳憲法文本及釋憲實務見解，本文指出對於政黨規範性之理解，除了結社自由之權利保障，亦不可忽略整體憲政權力安排、代議民主原則，以及經由憲法變遷所漸次形成的民主代表性結構轉變。本文復透過盤點分析含括國家法與政黨自我規範之制度文本，嘗試描繪臺灣當前主要政黨對於國會政治所形構的整體管制圖像；另藉由與政治圈內人之訪談方法，本文進一步釐清規範與實踐可能存在之落差。此外，經由法院裁判內容分析，本文並發現我國法院不僅大抵採取「實體事項予以尊重，程序事項加以審查」的態度，面對國家法與政黨自我規範競合之處理基本上恪遵國家法優先之裁判原則。其次，本文於應然層面進行總體規範理論暨司法審查方法之檢討。本文指出，鑑於主要政黨於代議民主政治秩序中之特殊角色扮演，應有必要自關照於政黨政治實踐之視角重新形塑政黨規範性內涵；於此，政黨三元理論及民主法結構觀點不唯提供了思考方向。就規範形式言，在肯認形構民主政治秩序之多元權威基礎上，本文認為政黨（尤其主要政黨）所作自我管制既非公權力行使，亦與單純結社自由之權利行使有間；毋寧，應將政黨自我規範理解為是由政黨—作為國家與社會間之中介組織—所發展出的複合性特殊民主規範，方能適切掌握主要政黨所為自我管制之規範意義。就規範內容言，基於維繫民主原則、分權制衡等憲政風險管理之思考，本文主張立法者應於國家法層次明定「黨團內部民主運作原則」；並認為我國現行規範採行所謂「資深制」容有改革必要。此外，本文亦針對包括國會紀律、政黨紀律與黨團紀律之紀律規範安排與適用提出幾點分析建議。最後，對於國家法與政黨自我規範衝突競合之解決，本文建議我國法院應揚棄國家法優位之單一裁判原則。取而代之地，除於困難案件中應以利益衡量法則個案認定政黨自我規範有無優先於國家法之實質正當性外，學說上提出將針對國家的民主憲法法轉化為具有針對政黨效力之嘗試，以及政黨三元理論、政黨管制之水力學原理等關照政黨政治運作實際之觀點不妨為我國法院提供了若干司法審查的思考路徑。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The thesis attempts to conduct a systematic investigation on the institution and theory of partisan ordering of parliamentary politics in Taiwan through exploring the interrelationship between major political parties and the parliament, and examining how partisan-self regulation has diversified and complicated the political order of parliamentary democracy from the perspective of the law of democracy. Specifically, this thesis begins with a systematic investigation of the system in practice. A thorough review of the R.O.C. Constitution and J.Y. Interpretations shows that freedom of association is not the entirety of the normativity of political party; in fact, the normativity of political party should also involve the overall arrangement of constitutional power, the principle of representative democracy, and the structural change of political representation formed through constitutional changes. This article then attempts to illustrate the overall image of the current partisan ordering of parliamentary politics in Taiwan through normative analysis on legal materials including state laws and partisan rules, and further compare it with the empirical findings. Interviews with political insiders indicate that there is a possible gap between norms and practices, whereas the content analysis of court decisions suggests that courts in Taiwan generally adopt the attitude of "respecting substantive matters and reviewing procedural matters," and that the principle of the trump of state laws is mostly observed when dealing with the conflict of state laws and partisan rules.Secondly, this thesis evaluates the theory of partisan ordering of parliamentary politics as well as the corresponding methodology for judicial review. Considering that major political parties are key players of democratic politics, this thesis believes that it is more than necessary to reshape the normativity of political party from the perspective of the practice of party politics. The theory of tripartite formulation of political party and the structural theory of law of democracy, for example, may shed new light on the regulatory roles of the state, the courts, and the major political parties. By theorizing a pluralistic account of democratic authorities, this research argues that partisan self-regulation (especially by major political parties) is neither the exercise of power, nor that of the party’s associational right; rather, we should view partisan rules as a special partisan ordering of democracy to genuinely reflect political parties’ role as intermediaries between the civil society and the state, and to properly grasp the normative significance and implications of such rules. Furthermore, this thesis advocates that legislators should define clearly the "principle of intra-parliamentary party democracy " in state law, and that there is an urgent need to reevaluate the seniority system for the sake of constitutional risk management such as ensuring the effectivity of principle of democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances. In addition, this paper also provides suggestions for the application of disciplinary norms including legislative discipline, party discipline and caucus discipline. Finally, to resolve the conflict between state laws and partisan rules, the thesis suggests that Taiwanese courts abandon the single adjudication principle of the trump of the state law. Instead, in difficult cases, the principle of proportion should be adopted to determine whether or not partisan rules prevail over state laws. The theory of tripartite formulation of political party, the hydraulics and politics of party regulation, and other viewpoints concerning the practice of party politics may further provide some thoughts for judicial review. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與目的 1第二節 研究範圍與限制 4第三節 文獻回顧 5第四節 研究方法 7第五節 分析架構與章節安排 11第二章 我國政黨形成國會政治之現行管制架構及其司法審查 13第一節 政府管制 13第二節 政黨自我管制 35第三節 政府管制與政黨自我管制之規範競合及其司法審查—聚焦於我國法院相關裁判 68第四節 小結 84第三章 美國民主法理論之啟示 88第一節 民主法作為學科領域及其學術關懷 88第二節 民主法之司法審查方法及組織原則 90第三節 民主法理論與政黨管制 97第四節 小結 135第四章 我國法之反思 137第一節 總體規範性思考 137第二節 政黨對於國會政治之形成與規範架構 145第三節 政府管制與政黨自我管制之規範競合及其司法審查 160第四節 小結 164第五章 結論 168第一節 理論基礎之回顧 168第二節 立修法建議與展望 171參考文獻 175訪談紀錄 188 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2473265 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106651045 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 民主法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政黨 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 國會 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 國會政治 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 立法院黨團 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政黨自我管制 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 紀律 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資深制 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 黨內民主 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政黨自治 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 結社自由 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 司法審查 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Law of democracy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Political party en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Parliament en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Parliamentary politics en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Caucus en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Self-regulation of political party en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Discipline en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Seniority system en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Intraparty democracy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Party autonomy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Freedom of association en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Judicial review en_US dc.title (題名) 政黨對於國會政治之形成—美國民主法理論之啟示 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Partisan Ordering of Parliamentary Politics in Taiwan: An Extension of Law of Democracy en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻（一）專書John H. Ely著，劉靜怡譯（2005），民主與不信任，臺北：商周。 [Ely, John H. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]林子儀、葉俊榮、黃昭元、張文貞（2019），憲法：權力分立，3版，臺北：新學林。吳信華（2018），憲法釋論，3版，臺北：三民。蕭文生（2004），國家法（I）：國家組織篇，臺北：元照。（二）專書論文Heinrich Triepel著，薩孟武譯（1979），政黨的發展，收於：薩孟武編，孟武自選文集，頁183-201，臺北：三民。[Triepel, Heinrich (1928), Die Staatsverfassung und die politischen Parteien, Berlin: O. Liebmann.]林春元（2020），司法審查、選舉制度與民主代表性—從司法院釋字第721號解釋談起，收於：蘇彥圖編，憲法解釋之理論與實務（十），頁533-588，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所。胡博硯（2020），政黨在民主國家中的角色—不分區立法委員角色作為討論重點，收於：陳新民教授六秩晉五壽辰文集編輯委員會編，法治國家的原理與實踐—陳新民教授六秩晉五壽辰文集，頁503-524，臺北：新學林。蔡宗珍（2004），憲法、國家與政黨—從德國經驗探討政黨法制化之理論與實踐，收於：憲法與國家（一），頁135-224，臺北：元照。蔡宗珍（2004），我國憲政體制下政黨的定位、發展及其危機，收於：憲法與國家（一），頁179-224，臺北：元照。蘇彥圖（2007），在權利與結構之間：初探美國民主法學的認同與典範，收於：許志雄、蔡茂寅、周志宏編，現代憲法的理論與現實—李鴻禧教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集，頁193-233，臺北：元照。蘇彥圖（2021），政黨管制作為憲政工程，收於：研之得法—中央研究院法律學研究所成立十週年文集，頁587-625，臺北：元照。（三）期刊論文王業立（2002），國會中的政黨角色與黨團運作，月旦法學雜誌，86期，頁82-96。王韻茹（2013），政黨爭議的法律性質與爭訟，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁19-25。林佳和（2013），撤銷黨籍、當然喪失不分區立委資格？九月政爭的政黨考，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁26-34。林佳和（2015），政黨、政治與民主—「九月政爭」雖未蓋棺、但先論定，台灣法學雜誌，267期，頁1-3。林佳和（2017），憲法民主國原則的教條與挑戰，月旦法學雜誌，263期，頁24-39。林春元（2013），臺灣憲政體制與政黨政治下的權力分立，中研院法學期刊，12期，頁325-370。林超駿（2015），黨團協商、特殊立法機制與權力分立，月旦法學雜誌，246期，頁126-149。吳秦雯（2015），政黨自治與自律的界線，台灣法學雜誌，268期，頁9-14。陳淑芳（1999），國會議事規範之規範形式，政大法學評論，61期，頁87-108。陳淑芳（2002），國會改革五法實施之成效與檢討，月旦法學雜誌，85期，頁26-41。陳英鈐（2013），假處分定馬王憲政地位，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁3-8。陳英鈐（2014），黨內民主與民主深化—簡評馬王案判決/台北地院102訴3782判決，台灣法學雜誌，246期，頁177-181。陳英鈐（2015），亮票與議會自主—台灣高等法院高雄分院刑事判決101年上易字第1107號刑事判決評析，台灣法學雜誌，266期，頁39-49。陳英鈐（2015），擺盪於權力與規範下的政黨法制，台灣法學雜誌，267期，頁9-11。陳宏銘（2009），臺灣半總統制下的政黨關係—以民進黨執政時期為焦點，政治科學論叢，41期，頁1-56。陳忠五（2020），民事類實務導讀，台灣法學雜誌，392期，頁155-166。詹鎮榮（2005），黨內民主之憲法要求，月旦法學教室，36期，頁6-7。詹鎮榮（2016），總統、政黨與國會之相互關係—以政黨影響國政之憲法基礎及界限為中心，憲政時代，41卷3期，頁421-456。黃昭元（1999），國會改革五法簡介，台灣本土法學雜誌，1期，頁182-197。黃仁俊（2016），開除黨籍與司法審查—黨內民主原則的再出發，東吳法律學報，27卷4期，頁101-132。黃仁俊（2017），德國政黨規範理論的轉變—以政黨概念為中心，中研院法學期刊，21期，頁261-313。廖元豪（2013），開除國會議長是違憲？，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁9-13。蘇彥圖（2012），關於政治反托拉斯理論的三個故事，東吳公法論叢，5卷，頁541-558。蘇彥圖（2013），兩種紀律間的戰爭：一個關於臺灣當前黨國分際爭議的敘事與評論，台灣法學雜誌，233期，頁14-18。（四）碩博士論文游雨鈴（2000），國會黨團之研究—以德國法為中心兼論我國立院黨團，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。蘇慧婕（2003），論國會議員產生方式之規範及憲法界限—以人民的選舉自由為中心，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。盧拱晟（2011），以自由委任觀點論黨團強制與黨團協商，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。侯世傑（2013），一致政府與分立政府下之國會黨團運作—以政黨輪替2000-2012年經驗為範圍，國立臺灣師範大學政治學研究所碩士論文。呂政諺（2017），民主原則規範性困境之解決—透過論辯倫理學建構激進審議民主的嘗試，國立政治大學法律學系碩士班碩士論文。（五）政府委託報告蘇彥圖（2013），政黨作為選舉民主的管制者：一個以候選人選任之政黨管制為中心的民主法理論檢討，委託機關：科技部。蘇彥圖（2016），超越「代議委任之分裂」：關於台灣國會混合選制下之政治代表的規範理論重建，委託機關：科技部。林佳和（2019），追討不當黨產實體暨程序法研究，委託機關：不當黨產處理委員會。二、英文文獻（一）專書Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Eilperin, Juliet. 2007. Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship is Poisoning the House of Representatives. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Ely, John H. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Epstein, Leon D. 1989. Political Parties in the American Mold. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Fell, Dafydd. 2012. Party Politics in Taiwan. NY, New York: Routledge.Fell, Dafydd and Hsiao, Hsin-Huang Michael. 2019. Taiwan Studies Revisited. NY, New York: Routledge.Hacker, Jacob S. and Pierson, Paul. 2006. Off Center: The Republican Revolution & the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Hofstadter, Richard 1970. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States Vol. 2. 1780-1840. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Issacharoff, Samuel, Karlan, Pamela S., Pildes, Richard H., and Nathaniel Persily, 2016. The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. 5th ed. St. Paul: MN: Foundation Press.Jacobs, J. Bruce. 2012. Democratizing Taiwan. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Key Jr., V.O. 1964. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. NY, New York City: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.Madison, James. 2006. The Federalist No.10. NY, New York: Barnes & Noble.Maskell, Jack. 2013. Expulsion, Censure, Reprimand, and Fine: Legislative Discipline in the House of Representatives, RL31382. Congressional Research Service.Maskell, Jack. 2015. Qualifications of Members of Congress. R41946. Congressional Research Service.McDonalds, Michael P. and Samples, John, eds. 2006. The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Nivola, Pietro S. and Brady, David W., eds. 2006. Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Cause of America’s Polarized Politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Overton, Spencer. 2006. Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression. NY: New York City: W. W. Norton & Company.The Future of the Voting Rights Act (David L. Epstein, et al. eds., 2006).Posner, Richard A. 2005. Law, Pragmatism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Rosenblum, Nancy. 2010. On the Side of Angels: A Political Theory of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party Government. Ballwin, MO: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Shapiro, Ian. 2006. The State of Democracy Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Straus, Jacob R. 2011. Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: An Historical Overview, Congressional Research Service RL30764.Wood, Gordon. 1998. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press.Wolfe, Alan. 2007. Does American Democracy Still Work? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Washington, George. 2014. Farewell Address. Pp. 205-219 in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, edited by James D. Richardson. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.（二）專書論文Müller, Wolfgang and Ulrich Sieberer. 2006. Party Law. in Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Richard S. Katz and William J. Crotty, illustrated edition, 435-445. CA: Sage Publications Ltd.Pildes, Richard. 2011. Political Parties and Constitutionalism, in Comparative Constitutional Law, edited by Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Tushnet, Mark. 2009. State Action in 2020, Pp. 198-214 in The Constitution in 2020, edited by Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.（三）期刊論文El-Haj, Tabatha Abu. 2011. Changing the People: Legal Regulation and American Democracy. New York University Law Review 86(1): 102-166.Garrett, Elizabeth. 2002. Is the Party Over? Courts and the Political Process. Supreme Court Review: 95-152.Gerken, Heather K. 2005. Second-Order Diversity and Disaggregated Democracy. Harvard Law Review 118: 1099-1195.Gerken, Heather K. 2005. Dissenting by Deciding. Stanford Law Review 57: 101-160.Greene, Abner S. 2012. Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Issacharoff, Samuel, and Pildes, Richard. 1998. Politics as Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process. Stanford Law Review 50: 643-717.Issacharoff, Samuel, and Ortiz, Daniel R. 1999. Governing through Intermediaries. Virginia Law Review 85: 1627-1670.Issacharoff, Samuel. 2001. Private Parties with Public Purposes: Political Parties, Associational Freedoms, and Partisan Competition. Columbia Law Review 101(2): 274-313.Issacharoff, Samuel. 2007. Fragile Democracies. Harvard Law Review 120: 1405-1467.Karlan, Pamela S. 1997. Just Politics? Five Not So Easy Pieces of the 1995 Term. Houston Law Review 34: 289-314.Karlan, Pamela S. 1999. Constitutional Law, the Political Process, and the Bondage of Discipline. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 32: 1185-1197.Klarman, Michael J. 1997. Majoritarian Judicial Review: The Entrenchment Problem. Georgetown Law Journal 85: 491-553.Kang, Michael S. 2005. The Hydraulics of Party Regulation. Iowa Law Review 91: 131-187.Karvonen, Lauri. 2007. Legislation on Political Parties: A Global Comparison. Party Politics 13(4): 437-455.Levinson, Daryl J. and Pildes, Richard. 2006. Separation of Parties, Not Powers. Harvard Law Review 119; NYU Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 06-07, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 131: 1, 26. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=890105Lowenstein, Daniel H. 1993. Associational Rights of Major Political Parties: A Skeptical Inquiry. Texas Law Review 71: 1741-1792.Mersel, Yigal. 2006. The Dissolution of Political Parties: The Problem of Internal Democracy. International Journal of Constitutional Law 4(1): 84-113.Ortiz, Daniel R. 2000. Duopoly versus Autonomy: How the Two-Party System Harms the Major Parties. Columbia Law Review 100(3): 753-774.Persily, Nathaniel. 2001. Toward a Functional Defense of Political Party Autonomy. New York University Law Review 76: 750-824.Pildes, Richard H. 2011. Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America. California Law Review 99: 273-334.Rosenblum, Nancy. 2000. Political Parties as Membership Groups. Columbia Law Review 100(3): 813-844.Schleicher, David. 2006. “Politics as Markets” Reconsidered: Natural Monopolies, Competitive Democratic Philosophy and Primary Ballot Access in American Elections. Supreme Court Economic Review 14: 163-220.Su, Yen-tu. 2016. The Partisan Ordering of Candidacies and the Pluralism of the Law of Democracy: A Case of Taiwan, Electoral Law Journal 15(1): 31-47.Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global. Sydney Law Review 30: 375-411.Tuttle, Alonzo H. 1903. Limitations Upon the Power of the Legislature to Control Political Parties and Their Primaries. Michigan Law Review 1(6): 466-495.三、德文文獻Bergsträsser, Ludwig/Mommsen, Wilhelm (1965), Geschichte der politischen Partieien in Deutschland, 11. Aufl., München: G. Olzog.Downs, Anthony (1968), Ökonomische Theorie der Demokratie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Köhler, Jan (2006), Parteien im Wettbewerb: zu den Wettbewerbschancen nicht-etablierter politischer Parteien im Rechtssystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Klein, Hans H. (2006), Das Parlament im Verfassungsstaat, 1. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Morlok, Martin/Schliesky, Utz /Wiefelspütz, Dieter (2016), Parlamentsrecht, 1. Aufl., Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Morlok, Martin (2003), Parteienrecht als Wettbewerbsrecht, in: Häberle/Morlok/Skouris (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Dimitris Th. Tsatsos zum 70. Geburtstag, Baden-Baden: Nomos, S. 408-447.Preuß, Hugo (1928), Reich und Länder: Bruchstücke eines Kommentars zur Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches, Berlin: Heymann.Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1993), Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, 7 erw. Aufl., Tübingen: Francke.Stier-Somlo, Fritz (1909), Reichsvereinsgesetz vom 19. April 1908, systematischer Kommentar, Stuttgart: Dt. Verlags-Anst.Triepel, Heinrich (1928), Die Staatsverfassung und die politischen Parteien, Berlin: O. Liebmann. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202200115 en_US
