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：轉型法院與法治主義：論最高行政法院對違法行政命令審查的積極趨勢
書刊名：人文及社會科學集刊
作者：葉俊榮 引用關係／張文貞 引用關係
作者(外文)：Yeh, Jiunn-rong／Chang, Wen-chen
出版日期：2002
卷期：14:4
頁次：頁515-559
主題關鍵詞：轉型；法院；法治主義；司法積極主義；憲法政治；權力分立；行政法院；行政命令；司法審查；Transition；Court；Rule of law；Judicial activism；Constitutional politics；Separation of powers；Administrative court；Administrative rule；Judicial review
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(14) 博士論文(3) 專書(1) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:14
  • 共同引用共同引用:1586
  • 點閱點閱:120
　　　　　行政訴訟法於民國八十七年底大幅修正，行政法院的組織也於翌年初重新調整。面臨轉型的行政法院，是否因此一制度變革而產生判決取向的變更？而此一變更是否對司法院大法官的釋憲機能產生影響？基於行政命令的審查涉及法治主義的落實與權力部門間的互動與制衡，本文選擇以最高行政法院對行政命令的審查為研究對象，利用判決電子化之便，跳脫傳統的指標判決評釋方法，對行政法院判決進行量化分析以掌握判決趨勢。 本文發現，最高行政法院於改制之後，對行政命令的審查與拒絕適用明顯轉趨積極。在轉型脈絡中，法院展現「司法積極主義」，不僅合乎國內外先例，也能適時建立立法院的威望，值得肯定，惟行政法院所顯露的司法積極主義，卻帶有強烈「形式法治主義」色彩。行政法院應擺脫形式法治主義，從實質理念與程序溝通著眼，強化判決的訊息釋放功能，真正擔負起司法監督行政、保障人民權益的功能。
　　　　　The Law of Administrative Litigation Procedure was revised substantially in the end of 1998 and as a result, the Administrative Court was reorganized in the spring of the next year. It is therefore intriguing whether and how the Administrative Court has responded to such a profound institutional change with its court decisions and styles of legal reasoning, and whether such reoriemtation of theAdministrative Court has affected the judicial review function of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. This Article discusses the Supreme Administrative Court's review of administrative rules, as it is concerned with constitutional principles of the rule of law and checks and balances of governmental branches. With the electronic database created by the Judicial Yuan, the authors employ an empirical method, instead of the traditional leading case approach, to analyze the changeing patterns of court decisions. This Article finds that after the reorganization, the Supreme Administrative Court (the Court) has become both active in reviewing administrative rules and straightforward in rejecting unlawful rules in individual cases. In a transitional context, a court's display of judicial activism not only is consistent with similar experiences exhibited by other courts, at home and abroad, but also can enhance greatly the institutional respect of a court. Judicial activism shown by the Court, however, has been colored with legal formalism. The authors suggest that the Court may leave behind legal formalism and shift the focus to substantive right and procedural concerns. By strengthening the message-sending function of court dicisions, the Court may actually play an active role in the protection of human rights and the supervision of administration.
期刊論文
1.Clark, D. S.(1975)。Judicial Protection of the Constitution in Latin America。Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly，2，405-442。  new window
2.Tate, C. Neal、Haynie, S. L.(1993)。Authoritarianism and the Functions of Courts: A Time Series Analysis of the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961-1987。Law & Society Review，27(4)，707-740。  new window
3.Dworkin, Ronald(1981)。The Forum of Principle。New York Law Review，56，469-518。  new window
4.Toharia, José J.(1975)。Judicial Independence in an Authoritarian -Regime: The Case of Contemporary Spain。Law and Society Review，9(3)，475-496。  new window
5.Shuck, Peter、Elliott, Donald(1990)。To the Chevron Station: An Empirical Study of Federal Administrative Law。Duke Law Journal，984。  new window
6.葉俊榮(19990100)。從國家發展與憲法變遷論大法官的釋憲機能：一九四九至一九九八。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，28(2)，1-63。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Tushnet, Mark(1996)。Federalism and Liberalism。Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law，4，329-344。  new window
8.葉俊榮(19960100)。司法院大法官附期限憲法解釋的分析。國家科學委員會研究彙刊. 人文及社會科學，6(1)，1-23。  延伸查詢new window
9.翁岳生(19950600)。論法官之法規審查權。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，24(2)，87-109。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.葉俊榮(20020300)。從「轉型法院」到「常態法院」：論大法官釋字第二六一號與第四九九號解釋的解釋風格與轉型脈絡。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，31(2)，59-96。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.Teitel, Ruti(1994)。Post-Communist Constitutionalism: A Transitional Perspective。Columbia Human Rights Law Review，26。  new window
12.Winer, Anthony S.(2000)。Why the 'New Non-delegation' May Not Be So New。William Mitchell Law Review，27。  new window
13.Rubenfeld, Jed(1998)。The Moment and the Millennium。George Washington Law Review，66。  new window
14.Amar, Akhil Reed(1999)。Intratextualism。Harvard Law Review，112，747-827。  new window
15.Brzezinski, Mark F.、Garlicki, Leszek(1995)。Judicial Review in Post-Communist Poland: The Emergence of a Rechtsstaat?。Stanford Journal of International Law，31。  new window
16.Calabresi, Steven G.(1998)。Textualism and the Countermajoritarian Difficulty。George Washington Law Review，66。  new window
17.Varga, Csaba(1993)。Transformation to Rule of Law from No-law Societal Contexture of the Democratic Transition in Central and Eastern Europe。Connecticut Journal of International Law，8。  new window
18.Easterbrook, Frank H.(1998)。Textualism and the Dead Hand。George Washington Law Review，66。  new window
19.Farer, Tom(1995)。Consolidating Democracy in Latin America: Law, Legal Institutions and Constitutional Structure。American University Journal of Law and Policy，10。  new window
20.Hartwig, Matthias(1992)。The Institutionalization of the Rule of Law: The Establishment of Constitutional Courts in the Eastern European Countries。American Journal of International Law and Policy，450。  new window
21.Hirschl, Ran(2000)。The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization: Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions。Law & Social Inquiry，25，91-148。  new window
22.Hirschl, Ran(2000)。The Structure for Hegemony: Understanding Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization in Culturally Divided Polities。Stanford Journal of International Law，36。  new window
23.Knight, Jack、Epstein, Lee(1996)。On the Struggle for Judicial Supremacy。Law & Society Review，30，87-120。  new window
24.Krug, Peter(1997)。Departure from the Centralized Model: The Russian Supreme Court and Constitutional Control of Legislation。Virginia Journal of International Law，37。  new window
25.Lovell, George I.(2000)。That Sick Chicken Won't Hurt: The Limits of A Judicially Enforced Nondelegation Doctrine。Constitutional Commentary，17。  new window
26.Sheive, Sarah Wright(1995)。Central and Eastern European Constitutional Courts and the Antimajoritarian Objection to Judicial Review。Law and Policy in International Business，26。  new window
27.Strauss, David A.(1998)。The New Textualism in Constitutional Law。George Washington Law Review，66。  new window
28.Tate, C. Neal(1994)。The Judicialization of Politics in the Philippines and Southeast Asia。International Political Science Review，15。  new window
29.Teitel, Ruti(1997)。Transitional Jurisprudence: The Role of Law in Political Transformation。The Yale Law Journal，106(7)，2009-2080。  new window
30.葉俊榮(1996)。司法判決的量化研究：行政法院環保判決的結構分析。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，26(1)，27-77。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.吳庚(2000)。依法行政原則的實踐：回顧與展望。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.葉俊榮(1993)。行政法院環保判決之研究（一）。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
2.葉俊榮(1994)。行政法院環保判決之研究（二）。沒有紀錄。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.Chang, W. C.(2001)。Transition to Democracy, Constitutionalism, and Judicial Activism: Taiwan in Comparative Constitutional Perspective(碩士論文)。Yale Law School。  new window
2.張文貞(1995)。行政命令訂定程序的改革:多元最適程序原則的提出(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
3.Wannenmacher, Flex Max(1996)。It's Not Enough to Just Say 'No': There's So Much to Judicial Review Than Merely Negating，Berkeley。  new window
圖書
1.Holland, K. M.(1991)。Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective。Houndmills：Basingstoke：Hampshire：Macmillan Academic and Professional。  new window
2.Jackson, Vicki C.、Tushnet, Mark(1999)。Comparative Constitutional Law。New York, NY：Foundation Press。  new window
3.Ackerman, Bruce(1991)。We the People: Foundations。Cambridge, MA：Harvard University Press。  new window
4.葉俊榮(1990)。行政法案例分析與研究方法。臺北：三民書局股份有限公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Kommers, Donald P.(1997)。The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany。London。  new window
6.Habermas, Jürgen、Rehg, William(1998)。Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy。MIT Press。  new window
7.吳庚(1996)。行政法之理論與實用。臺北：吳庚。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.黃舒芃(2011)。行政命令。臺北：三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
9.Huntington, Samuel P.、劉軍寧(1994)。第三波：二十世紀末的民主化浪潮。臺北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
10.Bickel, Alexander Mordecai(1986)。The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics。Yale University Press。  new window
11.Ely, John Hart(1980)。Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review。Harvard University Press。  new window
12.Scalia, Antonin、Gutmann, Amy(1997)。A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law。Princeton University Press。  new window
13.Sypnowich, Christine(1999)。Utopia and the Rule of Law。Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order。沒有紀錄。  new window
14.Dyzenhaus, David(1999)。Recrafting the Rule of Law。Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order。沒有紀錄。  new window
15.Fisher, Louis(1988)。Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretations as Political Process。Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretations as Political Process。Princeton, NJ。  new window
16.Harel, Alon(1999)。The Rule of Law and Judicial Review: Reflections on the Israeli Constitutional Revolution。Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order。沒有紀錄。  new window
17.Knight, Jack、Epstein, Lee(1998)。Choices Justice Make。Choices Justice Make。沒有紀錄。  new window
18.MacCormick, Neil(1999)。Rhetoric and the Rule of Law。Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order。沒有紀錄。  new window
19.O'Brien, David M.(2000)。Constitutional Law and Politics: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability。Constitutional Law and Politics: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability。沒有紀錄。  new window
20.Pierce, Richard J., Jr.(1999)。Administrative Law and Process。Administrative Law and Process。沒有紀錄。  new window
圖書論文
1.許宗力(2007)。訂定命令的裁量與司法審查。憲法與法治國行政。元照。  延伸查詢new window
2.許宗力(1993)。論法律保留原則。法與國家權力。元照。  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
 
無相關點閱
 
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：231（臺灣：228，外國：3） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1430120 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67237946
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