本文旨在探討公民投票的理論、類別及其法制化的原理與實際爭議性問題之釐清。 經由本文的討論，可以理解公民投票乃係基於直接民權的概念而型塑，但直接民權有其實際執行之困難，故現行民主國乃採以代議制度為主，直接民權為輔之主權行使原則。就公民投票內涵而言，概可分為體制內的政策公投、創制、複決，以及體制外的鋹權公投之態樣。而就體制內而言，公民投票實屬憲法保留，其具體實施方式則為憲法委託立法型態，因此，公民投票(包括諮詢性公投)，乃根基於法律基礎之上，使具有合法性及正當性。但是，若以法律規範主權公投等推翻現行憲政體制的作法，實非現行體制所能制約，而屬體制外之政治革命行為。故欲經由立法使主權公投成為合法化，實無法規?之南實益。 因此本文認為，在行憲法規範的公民投票或創制複決法，對宜允許可能造成國家歸屬產生變化等之主權公投，除非先行修憲賦予相關依據，不則將危及民法憲政秩序之運作。

　　　　　This paper is aimed to examine the theories, categories and the legalization principles of referendum together with the clarification on the controversial issues. It can be understood from the discussion in this paper that referendum is based on the shaping of the concept on direct civil rights. In view of the difficulties encountered in the implementation of direct civil rights, the current democratic states have adopted the principle of exercising sovereignty with representative system assisted by direct civil rights. In terms of the connotation of referendum, it can be roughly divided into plebiscite, formulation, and repeat voting of the policies within the government system or the sovereignty referendum approach outside of the government system. As for the former, the referendum belongs toe preservation of constitution and the specific implementation of which is the authorization of legislation by the constitution. Consequently, referendum (including consultative referendum) is based on the legal foundation whereby the action is legitimate and authentic. However, the practice of overthrowing the current constitutional government by regulated sovereignty referendum is indeed unable to be restricted by the existing system. These are characterized as political and revolutionary actions beyond any government system. Accordingly, any attempt to legalize the sovereignty referendum via legislation is actually non-regulated accomplishment. As a result, this paper believes that the referendum or repeat voting approach regulated by the current constitution does not also any sovereignty referendum that might create possible state authority change. It would jeopardize the order of democratic and constitutional government operation unless relevant foundations are empowered by prior constitutional amendment.