臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：論合憲訴訟救濟制度之建構--從釋字第665號解釋出發
書刊名：臺北大學法學論叢
作者：林超駿 引用關係
作者(外文)：Lin, Frederick Chao-chun
出版日期：2012
卷期：82
頁次：頁1-93
主題關鍵詞：司法權；合憲訴訟救濟；釋字第665號解釋；禁止雙重危險原則；憲法文本；釋憲對話；釋憲制度；司法行政；美國最高法院；上訴制度；法院之友；孤立隔絕少數；Constitutional judicial process；Interpretation No. 665；Double jeopardy；Constitutional text；Constitutional dialogue；Judicial review；Judicial administration；The US Supreme Court；Appellate process；Amicus curiae；Discrete and insular minorities
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:142
  • 點閱點閱:75
大法官向來有關合憲訴訟救濟建構之見解，是從強調以個案訴訟程序之性質、種類與功能等，作為判斷之準據。如此見解之基本問題，是在於見樹不見林，以司法院釋字第 665 號解釋之訴訟救濟見解為例，該號解釋對於系爭問題，也就是有關檢察官得否對停止羈押裁定抗告之議題，由於定性不夠精確，以致未能從宏觀之有利被告裁判觀點而為問題之論述。就此而言，在憲法禁止雙重危險原則影響下之美國有利被告裁判法制（18 USC § 3731）之規定，便有其參考價值。然更重要的是，自美國法 18 USC § 3731 有利被告裁判法制形成之過程觀之，更襯托了大法官有關訴訟救濟見解之不足。亦即，是項制度之演變是經過複雜之過程，其中重要關鍵，是在於憲法文本之影響、法院組織之調整、釋憲者之實務作為以及三權間釋憲對話之結果。而以此對我國及美國法之分析為基礎，本文主張，有關合憲性訴訟救濟之建構，必須從憲法文本強化開始，俾以給予釋憲者釋憲之正當性基礎，同時較細緻之憲法文本規範，將有利於問題之定性與討論之聚焦。其次，合憲訴訟救濟之建構，在各方利益糾纏下，必須以釋憲對話方式為佳。復次，強調合憲訴訟救濟之問題，不需以解釋憲法文本為唯一解決途徑，從訴訟實務之操作上，亦可為合憲訴訟救濟制度之建構。最後，本文將嘗試勾勒出於釋憲對話下，三個憲政機關於合憲訴訟救濟建構議題上應有之角色與作為。
The Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan always think that the constitutionality of a particular litigation process depends on the character, nature and function of the case at issue. The Interpretation No. 665 is an excellent example. However, the main problem of this opinion lies in that the Grand Justices have not precisely characterized the specific issue of a particular first. Moreover, failing to understand the importance of characterization, the Grand Justices also fail to construct an overall constitutional framework of the litigation system. This paper would stress that to construct a constitutional litigation process we should begin from enacting a more detailed constitutional texts. Besides, we should rely on the approach of constitutional dialogues to establish a better system of constitutional litigation process. Therefore, it would establish a better constitutional approach of designing judicial process here in Taiwan.
期刊論文
1.Amar, A. R.(1997)。Double jeopardy law made simple。Yale Law Journal，106，1807-1847。  new window
2.Waldron, Jeremy(2006)。The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review。Yale Law Journal，115(6)，1346-1406。  new window
3.蘇永欽(20100100)。人權保障留給司法行政和程序的立法空間--簡評釋字第六六五號解釋。月旦法學，176，5-23。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.姜世明(20090401)。長期被忽略之法治國支柱--論法定法官原則之觀念釐清及實踐前瞻。臺灣本土法學雜誌，125，9-21。  延伸查詢new window
5.陳運財(20100100)。大法官釋字第六六五號解釋評析。月旦法學，176，24-41。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.林超駿(20100805)。初論速審法限制檢方對無罪案件之上訴--美國刑事不對稱上訴法制簡介。司法周刊，1503，2-3。  延伸查詢new window
7.Fallon, Richard H. Jr.(2008)。The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review。Harvard Law Review，121(7)，1693-1736。  new window
8.黃昭元(20040500)。憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，33(3)，45-148。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.林超駿(20100500)。行政權之釋憲機制--美國聯邦訴訟（次）長（Solicitor General）制度與運作簡介。月旦法學，180，180-206。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.Li, Chien-Liang(2010)。審判獠立與司法獨裁。月旦法學雜誌，176。  延伸查詢new window
11.Lin, Chao-Chun(2009)。試論設計法院分案制度應考慮之因素－也評我國一般所謂之法定法官原則。台灣法學雜誌，136。  延伸查詢new window
12.Chen, Yun-Cai(2011)。不對稱上訴制度之硏究，檢察新論。檢察新論，9。  延伸查詢new window
13.Liao, Fu-te(2009)。即使戰爭，也要人權。歐美硏究，39(4)。  延伸查詢new window
14.Carrington, Paul D.(1969)。Crowded Dockets and the Courts of Appeals: The Threat to the Function of Review and the National Law。Harvard Law Review，82，542-617。  new window
15.Fallon, Richard H., Jr.(2010)。Jurisdiction-Stripping Reconsidered。VA, L. REV.，96，1043, 1053。  new window
16.Gunther, Gerald(1984)。Congressional Power to Curtail Federal Jurisdiction: an opinionated Guide to the Ongoing Debate。STAN. L, REV.，36，895。  new window
17.Hart, Henry(1953)。The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic。HARV. L. REV.，66，1362。  new window
18.Khana, Vikramaditya S.(2002)。Double Jeopardy’s Asymmetric Appeal Rights: What Purpose Do They Serve?。B.U. L. REV.，82，341, 355-360。  new window
19.Kruland, Philip B.(1961)。The Mersky Case and the Criminal Appeals Act: A Suggestion For Amendment of the Statute。U. CHI. L. REV.，28，419, 447。  new window
20.Merritt, Alexander L.(2010)。Confession of Error by Administrative Agencies。WASH & LEE L. REV.，67，1197, 1199。  new window
21.Morrison, Trevor W.(2006)。Constitutional Avoidance in the Executive Branch。COLUM. L. REV.，106，1189。  new window
22.Neuman, Gerald L.(2010)。The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause Àfler Boumediene v. Bush。COLUM. L. REV.，110，537。  new window
23.Note(1969)。Government Litigation in the Supreme Court: The Role of the Solicitor General。Yale Law JOURNAL，78，1442, 1467。  new window
24.Poulin, Anne Bowen(2008)。Government Appeals in Criminal Cases: The Myth of Asymmetry。U. CIN. L. REV.，77，1, 14。  new window
25.Redish, Martin(1982)。Congressional Power to Regulate Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Under the Exceptions Clause: An Internal and External Examination。VlLL. L. REV.，27，900。  new window
26.Arkin, Marc M.(1992)。Rethinking The Constitutional Right to A Criminal Appeal。UCLAL. REV.，39，503, 524。  new window
27.Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew P.(2009)。The Supreme Court’s Controversial CVRs-And An Alternative。MICH. L. Rev.，107，711-712。  new window
28.Shapiro, Scott J.(1990)。Reviewing the Unreviewable Judge: Federal Prosecution Appeals of Mid trial Evidentiary Rulings。Yale L. J.，99，905, 911-924。  new window
29.Steinglass, Joshua(1998)。The Justice System in Jeopardy: the Prohibition on Government Appeals of Acquittals。IND. L. REV.，31，353-383。  new window
30.Stith, Kate(1990)。The Risk of Legal Error in Criminal Cases: Some Consequences of the Asymmetry in the Right to Appeal。U. CHI. L. REV，57，1。  new window
31.Stranzzella, James A.(1997)。The Relationship of Double Jeopardy to Prosecution Appeals。NOTRE DAME L. REV.，73，1, 2-5。  new window
32.Tribe, Laurence(1995)。Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflecting on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation。HARV. L. REV，108，1221。  new window
33.Young, Ernest A.(2007)。The Constitution Outside the Constitution。Yale L. J.，117，408。  new window
34.Rossman, David(1991)。“Where There No Appeal”: The History of Review in American Criminal Courts。J. CRIM. & CRIMINOLOGY，81，518, 526-528。  new window
圖書
1.Conte, Alex、Burchill, Richard(2009)。Defining Civil and Political Rights: The Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee。Ashgate。  new window
2.林俊益(200901)。刑事訴訟法概論（下）。新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
3.Epstein, Lee、Knight, Jack(1998)。The Choices Justices Make。Washington, D. C.：CQ Press。  new window
4.Salokar, R.(1992)。THE SOLICITOR GENERAL：THE POLITICS OF LAW。Philadelphia, PA：Temple University Press。  new window
5.Scalia, Antonin G.(1998)。A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law。Princeton, NJ：Princeton University Press。  new window
6.Ovey, C.、White, R.(2002)。Jacobs and White The European Convention on Human Rights。  new window
7.AMAR, AKHIL REED(2005)。AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION：A BIOGRAPHY。New York, NY：Random House。  new window
8.Wayne R. LaFave、Jerold H. Israel、Nancy J. King, Orin S. Kerr,(2004)。Criminal Procedure。New York：Thomson West。  new window
9.TRIBE, LAURENCE(2000)。American Constitutional Law。New York, NY：Foundation Press。  new window
10.Segal, Jeffrey A.、Spaeth, Harold J.(2002)。The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited。Cambridge University Press。  new window
11.陳新民(2011)。憲法學釋論。臺北：三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
12.Posner, Richard A.(2008)。How Judges Think。Harvard University Press。  new window
13.Allen, Ronald Jay、Hoffman, Joseph L.、Livingston, Debra A.、Stuntz, William J.(2005)。Comprehensive Criminal Procedure。Aspen。  new window
14.林子儀、葉俊榮、黃昭元、張文貞(2008)。憲法：權力分立。新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
15.Ely, John Hart(1980)。Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review。Harvard University Press。  new window
16.李惠宗(2009)。憲法要義。元照。  延伸查詢new window
17.Lin, Chao-Chun(2006)。概論美國最高法院移審制度之歷史演變與當下之運作模式。超越繼受之憲法學：理想與現實。  延伸查詢new window
18.Fa, Ji-Ping、Dong, Bao-Cheng(2010)。憲法新論。  new window
19.Calabresi, Steven G.(2007)。A Critical Introduction to the Originalism Debate。ORIGINALISM：A QUARTER-CENTURY OF DEBATE。  new window
20.COLLINS, PAUL M. JR.(2008)。FRIENDS OF THE SUPREME COURT：INTEREST GROUPS AND JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING。  new window
21.DREWARY, GAVIN ET. AL.(2007)。THE COURT OF APPEAL。  new window
22.ORFIELD, LESTER B.(1939)。CRIMINAL APPEALS IN AMERICA。  new window
23.PATTENDEN, ROSEMARY(1996)。ENGLISH CRIMINAL APPEALS 1844-1994：APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN ENGLAND AND WALES。  new window
24.RUDSTBIN, DAVID S.(2004)。DOUBLE JEOPARDY：A REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION。  new window
25.FRANKFURTER, FELIX、LANDIS, JAMES M.(1928)。THE BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT。  new window
26.GJNSBURG, TOM(2003)。JUDICIAL REVIEW IN NEW DEMOCRACIES：CONSTITUTIONAL COUUTS IN ASIAN CASES。  new window
27.MCLAUCHLAN, JUDITHANNE SCOURFIELD(2005)。CONGRESSIONAL PARTICIPATION AS AMICUS CURIAE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT。  new window
28.MEADOR, DANIEL JOHN(2006)。APPELLATE COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES。  new window
29.SULLIVAN, KATHLEEN M.、GUNTHER, GERALD(2010)。CONSTITUTIONAL LAW。  new window
30.SMITHBURN, J. ERIC(2009)。APPELLATE REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT DECISIONS。  new window
31.WHITTINGTON, KEITH E.(2007)。POLITICAL FOUNDATION OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY：THE PRESIDENCY, THE SUPREME COURT, AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN US HISTORY。  new window
32.SONGER, DONALD R. ET. AL.(2000)。CONTINUITY AND CHANGE ON THE UNITED STATES OF COURTS OF APPEALS。  new window
33.SURRENCY, ERWIN C.(2002)。HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS。  new window
34.WHITTINGTON, KEITH(1999)。CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION：DIVIDED POWERS AND CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING。  new window
35.Ackerman, Bruce(1991)。We the People : Foundation。  new window
36.ALEINIKOFF, THOMAS ALEXANDER ET. AL.(2008)。IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP：PROCESS AND POLICY。  new window
37.CAPLAN, LINCOLN(1987)。THE TENTH JUSTICE。  new window
38.CHEMERINSKY, ERWIN(2003)。FEDERAL JURISDICTION。  new window
39.CLAYTON, CORNELL W.(1992)。THE POLITICS OF JUSTICE：THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE MAKING OF LEGAL FOLICY。  new window
40.FLANDERS, STEVEN(2010)。THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT-A JUDICIAL INNOVATION：ESTABLISHING A US COURT OF APPEALS。  new window
圖書論文
1.林子儀(20020000)。言論自由導論。臺灣憲法之縱剖橫切。元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：286（臺灣：286，外國：0） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2156165 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67954598
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上