在人權發展的歷史上，權利的內涵常隨著時代的演變而有變動。1960年代以降，隨著原住民族權利意識的抬頭，原住民族的權利也受到高度重視，並將原住民族的權利歸類為「第三代人權」。然而，第三代人權具有集體權的性質，與傳統立憲主義下自由主義及個人主義的要求有所扞格，也造成憲法上權利解釋的困難。本文透過回顧以往集體權理論的探討，並予以整理、分析，從個人主義及自由主義的觀點出發，分析不一定只有社群主義的權利觀才能導出集體權，其與普世價值間也不必然處於不可調和的關係。此外，藉著此等理論的釐清，也可以進一步推導出誰對民族成員有認定之權，以及民族可以向國家主張的權利。最終，為了達成族群平等的憲法誡命，國家基於憲法上保護義務的要求，可以從自我決策模式做改善，並落實原住民族自治，以避免國家產生基於差異及歧視所產生的不平等措施。經由此等措施的履行，將可望將此等無意義的差異消弭於無形，型塑出無族群差別的多元文化國。

The contents of right often transform with the change of era in human right history. After 1960s, along with the raise of indigenous consciousness, people take indigenous human right seriously. And scholars often classify indigenous right to "third generation human rights". The third generation human rights, however, is a collective human right which conflict with liberalism and individualism. So this right makes more trouble when we interpret Constitutional Law. This article review collective right theory, and analyze them from views of liberalism and individualism. I find collective right is not necessarily deduced from "Communitarianism", and collective right also can harmonize with universal values. Besides, we also can infer who could identify the membership of race and what kinds of right that races can apply to state through make certain the theory. Finally, in order to attain race-equal-one kind of mission in Constitution--, states should improve decision-making approaches and fulfill indigenous people self-governance from protective obligation in Constitutional Law. I believe we can avoid unequal measures which are caused from difference and discrimination if states establish these institutions. Also, we can understand the difference are insignificant, and ignore it. Furthermore, we can shape a Multicultural nation.