臺灣在國際的壓力之下，開始介入跨國移動工作者受到剝削的社會現實。我們以政府的力量介入，透過法律的制訂與施行，整合警政、檢調、社工、勞政、移民事務等專業者，建構了人口販運的防制網絡。這些法制上的努力，雖有成果，但原本是要提供一個架構，使來到臺灣的移工得以享有合理的工作環境，而實際的狀況卻更加複雜。人口販運相關法制以刑罰化的設計為主，為了達成打擊犯罪的目的，受販運者一旦被鑑別為「被害人」，實際上被強制留在臺灣境內，成為一個獲得救援與接受安置的「他者」。法律的社會功能，到底是偏向壓制性，還是創造性？本文以田野調查的觀察與反思為基礎，從人口販運法制之「合法律性」（legality）與「正當性」（legitimacy）之關聯，回答上述的議題。作者發現，我們經常只是著重於「依法行政」，或不違反「合法律性」的要求，但是卻忽略了法律可能具有壓制性。實際上，法律於事實的建構上，可能有粗糙、不精準或者片面的狀況，以及法律之執行規則可能欠缺細緻的操作想像。聚焦於「合法律性」的法律操作，其結果為將難解的倫理性議題，僅侷限在權利賦予及官僚專業與否的討論。這使得法律之「正當性」的問題往往不被重視，讓我們忽略了理性法律的操作需要人們的參與及對話。當法律失去看到被害人多元存在與複雜道德衝突之功能，法律的施行往往無法達成人性尊重的目標，甚至成為社會排除的過程。此時，法律的創造性功能不彰，可能成為偏向於具有壓制性。本文以為，為了使法律減少壓制性而較具有創造性，必須重新審思法律主體的建構性議題。人權的推動應該避免落入「加害者」、「被害者」與「拯救者」三重面貌的自我建構，因為這三者的自我建構往往阻礙我們看見人的具體情境，並做出規範上的回應。人權的推動，必須強調人（尤其被害人）的主動性與對話性，才有可能不斷回應在合法律性下新的社會現實；惟有藉由法律的正當性之持續抗爭，才得以促成被害人主體論述的建構性回應，並強化法律的創造性功能。

Under pressure from the international community, Taiwan has started undertaking intervention against the deprivations suffered by laborers from foreign countries in the past few years. Government authorities have played a major role in passing relevant laws and establishing a preventive mechanism that combines the police, prosecutors, social services, the labor administration and immigration control. Even though these efforts have had a significant impact in improving foreign workers’ social and working conditions in Taiwan, the reality is far more complicated. Since the laws addressing human trafficking focus on the punishment of perpetrators, the laborers being trafficked are thus identified as “victims” and forced to stay in Taiwan to testify in criminal procedures. They are alienated as “others” who need to be helped and placed in appropriate facilities in our society. Is the most crucial function of law the oppressive effect or the creative potential to society? Based on my extensive field investigations, I intend to answer the question in this essay by illuminating the connections between “legality” and “legitimacy” in Taiwan’s legal culture. We tend to emphasize the importance of “abiding by the law” and avoiding any violation of “legality”, but at the same time we ignore the fact that laws can have an inherently oppressive effect. In practice, the facts involved in a legal case are often recorded vaguely and judged partially. The law enforcement also lacks refined operational imagination. Complicated ethical issues are often neglected in the strict abidance by the rules set by authorities and bureaucratic professionals. The “legitimacy” of law is therefore the ultimate concern in the process, excluding human interactions and conversations in applying legal statutes in real life situations. When the various situations of the victims and the complex moral conflicts involved are overlooked, law enforcement often results in social exclusion rather than in upholding human dignity. The creative potential of law is undermined and the oppressive effect is strengthened. I am convinced that in order to minimize the oppressive side of the law and to inspire creative legal solutions, we have to reconstruct the subjectivity of the people involved in the legal process. The triple categorization of “perpetrator”, “victim” and “savior” raises risks in advancing human rights since it prevents us from seeing the real-life conditions faced by individuals and taking effective measures. Human rights can only be improved when we begin to take the initiative and emphasize the subjectivity of people (especially the “victims”) in constructing a “lawful” social reality. Only by upholding “legitimacy” in law enforcement and shaping constructive responses to solve people’s predicaments can we expect to enforce the creative potential of law in this aspect.