資料載入處理中...
臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統
:::
網站導覽
國圖首頁
聯絡我們
操作說明
English
行動版
(3.15.229.161)
登入
字型:
**字體大小變更功能,需開啟瀏覽器的JAVASCRIPT,如您的瀏覽器不支援,
IE6請利用鍵盤按住ALT鍵 + V → X → (G)最大(L)較大(M)中(S)較小(A)小,來選擇適合您的文字大小,
如為IE7以上、Firefoxy或Chrome瀏覽器則可利用鍵盤 Ctrl + (+)放大 (-)縮小來改變字型大小。
來源文獻查詢
引文查詢
瀏覽查詢
作者權威檔
引用/點閱統計
我的研究室
資料庫說明
相關網站
來源文獻查詢
/
簡易查詢
/
查詢結果列表
/
詳目列表
:::
詳目顯示
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆
/1
頁
來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料
題名:
Judicial Ideal Points in New Democracies: The Case of Taiwan
書刊名:
National Taiwan University Law Review
作者:
Pellegrina, Lucia Dalla
/
Garoupa, Nuno
/
林靜萍
作者(外文):
Lin, Shirley Ching-ping
出版日期:
2012
卷期:
7:1
頁次:
頁123-165
主題關鍵詞:
大法官
;
司法院
;
理想點
;
臺灣
;
實證分析
;
違憲審查
;
憲法法院
;
Constitutional court
;
Constitutional review
;
Empirical analysis
;
Grand justice
;
Ideal point
;
Judicial yuan
;
Taiwan
原始連結:
連回原系統網址
相關次數:
被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
排除自我引用:0
共同引用:0
點閱:140
本文以1998年至2009年任職臺灣司法院的大法官為研究對象,估計其理想點,以實證分析方法研究影響其司法行為的決定因素。又, 臺灣違憲審查制度的建立與發展,與該國由一黨專政的威權體制轉型為新興民主政體息息相關,故其在個案研究上更具價值。根據本文研 究結果,亦即估計出來的理想點顯示,首先,無法證明總統與其提名、任用之大法官具有政治結盟的關係。其次,除少數例外,絕大多數大法官的理想點均分佈在中庸地帶。最後,對於作者群先前運用計量經濟分析,否定態度性假設的研究成果,本文也再度確認司法院大法官並不傾向響應其提名人的政黨利益。
以文找文
ABSTRACT This paper extends the empirical analysis of the determinants of judicial behavior by estimating the ideal points for the Justices of the Taiwanese Constitutional Court from 1988-2009. Taiwan presents a particularly interesting case because the establishment and development of constitutional review corresponds to the country’s political transition from an authoritarian regime to an emerging democracy. The estimated ideal points allow us to focus on political coalitions in the Judicial Yuan based on presidential appointments. We did not find any strong evidence of such coalitions. Our empirical results indicated that, with the exception of a handful of Justices, most of them have moderate estimated ideal points. In the context of the Taiwanese Constitutional Court, our results also confirm the previous econometric analysis that largely rejected the attitudinal hypothesis, which predicted that Justices would respond to their appointers’ party interests.
以文找文
期刊論文
1.
Garoupa, N.、Grembi V.、Lin S. C. P.(2011)。Explaining constitutional review in new democracies: The case of Taiwan。Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal,20,1-40。
2.
Huang, T. W.(2005)。Judicial activism in the transitional polity: The Council of Grand Justices in Taiwan。Temple International & Comparative Law Journal,19,1-62。
3.
Yeh, Jiunn Rong、Chang, Wen Chen(2011)。The Emergence of East Asian Constitutionalism: Features in Comparison。American Journal of Comparative Law,59(3),805-839。
4.
Ginsburg, Tom(2002)。Confucian Constitutionalism? The Emergence of Constitutional Review in Korea and Taiwan。Law and Social Inquiry,27(4),763-800。
5.
Wang, Tay-sheng(2002)。The legal development of Taiwan in the 20th century: Toward a liberal and democratic country。Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal,11(3),531-560。
6.
Segal, Jeffrey A.、Cover, Albert D.(1989)。Ideological Values and the Votes of U. S. Supreme Court Justices。American Political Science Review,83(2),557-565。
7.
Bafumi, J.、Gelman, A.、Park, D. K.、Kaplan, N.(2005)。Practical issues in implementing and understanding Bayesian ideal point estimation。Political Analysis,13,171-187。
8.
Brenner, S.、Spaeth, H. J.(1988)。Ideological position as a variable in the authoring of dissenting opinions on the Warren and Burger Courts。American Politics Research,16,317-328。
9.
Chang, W. C.(2011)。Strategic judicial responses in politically charged cases: East Asian experiences。International Journal of Constitutional Law,8,885-910。
10.
Clinton, J.、Jackman, S.、Rivers, D.(2004)。The statistical analysis of roll call data。American Political Science Review,98,355-370。
11.
Cooney, S.(1997)。Why Taiwan is not Hong Kong: A review of the PRC’s “one country two systems” model for reunification with Taiwan。Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal,6,497-548。
12.
Hanretty, C.(201208)。Dissent in Iberia: The ideal points of justices of the Spanish and Portuguese constitutional tribunals。European Journal of Political Research,51(5),671-692。
13.
Huang, T. W.(2006)。The President refuses to cohabit: Semi-presidentialism in Taiwan。Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal,15,375-402。
14.
Jackman, S.(2001)。Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: Identitication, estimation, inference, and model checking。Political Analysis,9,227-241。
15.
Li, N. N. T.(2008)。The constitution: March forward or be swept away: the post-martial-law path 20 years on。Journal o f the Humanities and Social Science,46(3),1-92。
16.
Martin, A. D.、Quinn, K. M.(2002)。Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999。Political Analysis,10,134-153。
17.
Peress, M.(2009)。Small chamber ideal point estimation。Political Analysis,17(3),276-290。
18.
Wetstein, M. E.、Ostberg, C. L.、Songer, D. R.、Johnson. S. W.(2009)。Ideological consistency and attitudinal conflict: A comparison of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts。Comparative Political Studies,42(6),763-792。
19.
Winn, J. K.、Yeh, T. C.(1995)。Advocating democracy: The role of lawyers in Taiwan’s political transformation。Law & Social Inquiry,20(2),561-599。
圖書
1.
Hirschl, Ran(2004)。Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism。Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press。
2.
Jackson, Vicki C.、Tushnet, Mark(2006)。Comparative constitutional law。New York:Foundation Press。
3.
Segal, Jeffrey A.、Spaeth, Harold J.(2002)。The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited。Cambridge University Press。
4.
Chavez, Rebecca Bill(2004)。The Rule of Law in Nascent Democracies: Judicial Politics in Argentina。Stanford University Press。
5.
Hilbink, Lisa(2007)。Judges Beyond Politics in Democracy and Dictatorship: Lessons from Chile。Cambridge University Press。
6.
Roy, Danny(2003)。Taiwan: A Political History。Cornell University Press。
7.
Ginsburg, Tom(2003)。Judicial review in new democracies: constitutional courts in Asian cases。Cambridge University Press。
8.
Epstein, L.、Knight, J.(1997)。The choices Justices make。Washington, DC:CQ Press。
9.
Government Information Office(2010)。Republic of China yearbook 2010。Taipei:Kwang Hwa。
10.
Hansford, T. G.、Spriggs, J. F.(2008)。The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court。Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press。
11.
Helmke, G.(2004)。Courts under constraints: Judges, generals, and Presidents in Argentina。Cambridge:Cambridge University Press。
12.
Merryman, J. H.、Pérez-Perdomo, R.(2007)。The civil law tradition。Palo Alto, CA:Stanford University Press。
其他
1.
Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs(20120207)。Background Note: Taiwan,http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm。
2.
Hsueh, H. Y.。Taiwan lishih tzutien-Chiuhua-Fan Hsin-Hsiang [Dictionary of the Taiwan history-Nine strokes-Fan Hsin-Hsiang],http://nrchxca.gov.tw/ccahome/website/site20/contents/009/cca220003-li-wpkbhisdict002006-0612-u.xml。
3.
Judicial Yuan。Tiyichieh chih Tiliuchieh Tafakuan Chiu Chikuanshengchingche yu Jenminshengchingche Tsocheng Chiehshih chih Tungcnishuchupiao [The Proportion of the Cases Filed by Individuals and by Institutions from the First Term to the Sixth term of the Grand Jus,http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/uploadfile/E100/第一屆至第六屆大法官作成解釋之統計數據表.htm。
4.
Lin, C. J.(20010910)。The San Francisco Peace Treaty and the lack of conclusions on Taiwan’s international status,http://www.twhistory.org.tw/20010910.htm。
5.
Taipei Times(20101014)。Rai promises to win back public’s trust in judiciary [Editorial],http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2010/10/14/2003485347。
6.
Rose, N.,von Davier, M.,Xu, X.(201004)。Modeling nonignorable missing data with item response theory (IRT),http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-10-11 .pdf。
7.
(1948)。Tungyuan Kanluan Shihchi Linshih Tiaokuan [The Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion],http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Temporary_Provisions_Effective_During_the_period_ofCommunist_Rebellion。
圖書論文
1.
Yeh, J. R.(2002)。Constitutional Reform and Democratization in Taiwan: 1945-2000。Taiwan's Modernization in Global Perspective。Westport, CT:Praeger Publishers。
2.
Weng, Y. S.(2000)。Wokuo shihhsianchihtu chih techeng yu chanwang [The features and prospects of the Republic of China (ROC) constitutional review system]。Ssufayuan Dafakuan Shihhsian wushihchounien Chinian Lunwenchi [Essays in Memory of the Fiftieth Anniversary of constitutional Interpretations by the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan]。Taipei:Judicial Yuan。
3.
Xiao-Planes, X.(2009)。Of constitutions and constitutionalism: Trying to build a new political order in China, 1908-1949。Building Constitutionalism in China。Hants, England:Palgrave Macmillan。
推文
當script無法執行時可按︰
推文
推薦
當script無法執行時可按︰
推薦
引用網址
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用嵌入語法
轉寄
當script無法執行時可按︰
轉寄
top
:::
相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱
1.
我國大法官任命制度爭議之探討--兼論與德國聯邦憲法法院法官選任制度之比較
2.
論臺灣地區大法官解釋對兩岸關係的負面影響
3.
關於監察院聲請釋憲的若干方法論問題
4.
聖人不死,大盜不止
5.
我國與日本違憲審查制度之比較
6.
Harmony and Dis-harmony in the Office of the Ombudsman and the Constitutional Court of Hungary 2012~13
7.
活法作為違憲審查的標的
8.
論大法官釋憲程序中之「執行」
9.
國際人權法與國內政治動員--評論Beth Simmons的Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics
10.
集會遊行法第4條合憲性之分析
11.
違憲審查制中的暫時救濟--以日本憲法訴訟、我國釋憲制度之最近動向為中心(下)
12.
大法官釋憲對我國憲政體制的形塑
13.
裁判憲法訴願?--德國和臺灣違憲審查制度的選擇
14.
憲法解釋與訴訟權之保障--以釋字五六九號為中心
15.
違憲審查制中的暫時救濟--以日本憲法訴訟、我國釋憲制度之最近動向為中心(上)
1.
我國與法國違憲審查制度之比較研究
1.
從體系功能的角度看大法官的規範違憲審查--走向適切回應社會變遷的司法積極主義
2.
裁判憲法訴願?--德國和臺灣違憲審查制度的選擇
3.
論總統彈劾案由司法院大法官審理之憲政意義
4.
東歐民主轉型國家憲法法院對法治國家建構之影響
5.
大法官從事個案違憲審查之憲法解釋實例研究
無相關著作
無相關點閱
QR Code