「轉型正義」與「修復式正義」原本是兩組互相指涉的理論：當事人均為受害人、加害人與社群，國家只是配角；懲罰不是正義的第一義；應報主義與國家司法目的的維持，也被真相的探求、加害人的悔悟與道歉、受害人的需求得到滿足、以及包括社群在內的三者共同的和解與療癒等所取代。就近代國家／法而言，兩者都是非常具有顛覆性─因此也是充滿改革能量─的理論。但如果進入實踐的層面，則前者容易被誤解為政治鬥爭，而後者則往往只被視為近代刑法理論的補充與裝飾品。結果，無論是群體正義的轉型，或個人正義的修復，都失去了真正達成和解與療癒的功能。這種困境在缺乏堅實的西方民主／近代司法的人權傳統、缺乏道德的決心與政治的決斷的台灣尤為明顯。本文則試圖在此看似無解的現狀之下，提出另一個思考的切入點：一個在台灣的「轉型正義」與「修復式正義」中原本居於最關鍵位置，卻始終受到忽視的因素─台灣原住民族因素。本文試圖證明：只有理解台灣原住民族的受難歷史，恢復台灣原住民族的諸權利，才能夠在道德上、理論上以及實務上完成主流社會的「轉型正義」與「修復式正義」，並使居於台灣的所有族群得以獲得和解與療癒。

The theories of “Transitional Justice (TJ)” and ”Restorative Justice (RJ)” are essentially interrelated with each other. The concerned parties include the victims, the offenders / perpetrators and their communities. Therefore the state plays merely a supporting role. Punishment can not be of primary concern to justice. In the meantime, the retributivism or the commonly held judicial purposes of the state should be replaced by truth-seeking, by repentance and apology of the offenders, and by the reconciliation and healing among the victims, the offenders, and their communities. Those theories are so filled with reform-oriented energy that they are often regarded as subversive—whether politically or judicially—to modern states and their judicial systems. That is why “Transitional Justice” is prone to be misunderstood as a tool of political struggle, and ”Restorative Justice” as a cheap decoration of the criminal policies. Such predicament can be observed more easily in Taiwan, in that the so-called “Taiwan miracle of democratization” lacks nothing but a solid universal human-rights thinking. This article aims to provide a key factor for TJ and RJ so often neglected yet so important—namely a point of view of Taiwan’s indigenous people, and also to argue that Taiwan will never reach any meaningful reconciliation and healing unless indigenous human rights on TJ / RJ issues are fully protected.