:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:2011年行政法發展回顧
書刊名:國立臺灣大學法學論叢
作者:蔡茂寅 引用關係
作者(外文):Tsai, Maw-in
出版日期:2012
卷期:41:特刊
頁次:頁1405-1437
主題關鍵詞:行政法院行政法人法行政訴訟法大法官解釋行政法Administrative CourtAdministrative Juristic Persons ActAdministrative Court Proceedings ActGrand Justices InterpretationsAdministrative law
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(4) 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:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:36
  • 點閱點閱:56
本文係對於2011年實務見解之回顧,在與「學界回顧」有所區別之同時,為維持一定之學術性,故選材以具有「理論上重要性」者為主,除非絕對必要,否則不涉及僅具「事件重要性」之重大法律事件。其範疇以行政法總論為限,大體上包括立法動向、大法官解釋以及行政法院判決三大領域。首先,就立法動向言之,其成效並不顯著,但主要仍完成行政法人法的制定,以及行政訴訟法的修正。其次,就司法院大法官解釋而言,本年內於共做成釋字第684號至釋字第695號等12號解釋,在公法領域留下重要的足跡。大法官解釋在我國受到重視的程度年勝一年,此一方面固由於其最高有權解釋機關的性質所致,但在另一方面實亦因為其在民主、法治建設上確有貢獻有以致之。最後,就行政法院之判決觀之,近年來行政法院之判決時有佳構出現,顯見專業法官在繁忙之餘,其學術素養固已不容小覷;而於判決中亦時而引用學界之見解以實其說,質諸學界亦定時或不定時舉行「實務研討會」之情形,顯見學術與實務之交流日益密切,在學理堅實之行政法院法官日益增多之今日,學界如不能在學術廣度與密度上有所建樹,對實務界之影響終有式微之虞,可不奮起!除行政法院判決外,各級訴願決定、保訓會之復審決定等,依作者過去之經驗,當必亦有甚多具備學理上之重要性者,只以時間有限、人力不足,只能期諸將來。
This article analyzes the development of administrative law in practice in 2011. Though not a review of academic literatures, this analysis intends to maintain its academic quality by selecting those materials important in theory and not in event itself. Selected from the field of general principles of administrative law, the materials include the following three major sources: recent legislations, Interpretations of Constitutional Court (Grand Justices) and Administrative Court decisions. Among not so many cases, the enactment of Administrative Juristic Persons Act and amendment of Administrative Court Proceedings Act are two major achievements. Regarding constitutional interpretations, the Constitutional Court rendered a total of 12 Interpretations (No. 684 to No. 695) in 2011 and addressed many issues of importance on public law issues. Being the highest and final court, the Constitutional Court has long been recognized for its positive contribution to the democracy and rule of law in Taiwan. As to the Administrative Courts, they have produced many more decisions of good quality in recent years, indicating their improving research capacity, in spite of heavy workload. In their decisions, the Courts have cited more and more scholarly works to reinforce their opinions. On the other hand, the academia has been holding seminars to discuss the court decisions from time to time. It is obvious that there have been more interchanges between both sides than ever. In response to the improving research capacity of the Administrative Courts, the academia has to advance its breadth and depth in its research so that it may continue to have a positive influence on the practice. Other than the court decisions, many decisions of Administrative Appeal Commissions as well as of Civil Service Protection and Training Commission are also worth studying for their academic significance. Due to the limits of time and human resources, further research on them could only be expected in the future.
期刊論文
1.李建良(20111015)。人身自由的憲法保障與強制隔離的違憲審查--釋字第690號解釋。臺灣法學雜誌,186,60-79。  延伸查詢new window
2.許育典(20111200)。釋字第六八四號下大學與學生的法律關係。月旦法學,199,96-118。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.蔡茂寅(19960800)。郵政利用關係的法律性質--以公法與私法二元論之檢討為中心。月旦法學,15,98-102。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.陳清秀(20111200)。釋字第689號解釋有關新聞記者跟追案評析。法令月刊,62(12),50-66。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.蔡震榮(20111200)。由釋字第689號解釋論法適用與新聞自由的界限。法令月刊,62(12),67-80。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.尤英夫(20111200)。評司法院大法官釋字第689號解釋。法令月刊,62(12),81-98。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.石世豪(20111200)。國家為保護隱私限制新聞自由的合憲界限--賦予一般國民新聞採訪自由的釋字第689號解釋評析。法令月刊,62(12),99-121。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.翁秀琪(20111200)。從新聞傳播學角度看「釋字第689號解釋:王○博先生就社會秩序維護法第89條第2款有違憲疑義聲請解釋案」。法令月刊,62(12),122-141。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.劉靜怡(2011)。錯失「憲法時刻」的釋字第689號。在野法潮,11,10-11。  延伸查詢new window
10.劉靜怡(20110915)。為德不卒的釋字第689號。臺灣法學雜誌,184,50-55。  延伸查詢new window
11.李建良(2012)。公法類實務導讀。台灣法學雜誌,199,249-269。  延伸查詢new window
12.李建良(2011)。公法類實務導讀。台灣法學雜誌,181,133-154。  延伸查詢new window
13.黃銘輝(2012)。行政法最新修法動態淺析。台灣法學雜誌,2012年5月修法實務特刊,1-12。  延伸查詢new window
14.李仁淼(20120200)。在學關係中之權利救濟--釋字第六八四號評析。月旦裁判時報,13,16-27。  延伸查詢new window
15.賴恆盈(20111000)。告別特別權力關係--兼評大法官釋字第六八四號解釋。月旦法學,197,114-133。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.賴恆盈(20111100)。告別特別權力關係--兼評大法官釋字第六八四號解釋。月旦法學,198,174-190。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.李建良(20110915)。新聞採訪自由與個人生活保護的衝突與調和?--簡評釋字第689號解釋。臺灣法學雜誌,184,29-49。  延伸查詢new window
18.李建良(20110301)。大學生的基本權利與行政爭訟權--釋字第684號解釋簡評。臺灣法學雜誌,171,49-57。  延伸查詢new window
19.李惠宗(2011)。大學自治權下學籍制度合憲性之探討:後釋字第六八四號的問題。月旦法學雜誌,195,86-94。  延伸查詢new window
20.李惠宗(20110400)。校園將永無寧日?--釋字第六八四號解釋評析。月旦法學,191,111-128。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.蔡茂寅(20120800)。公法宏觀視角下的都市更新芻議。月旦法學教室,118,83-91。  延伸查詢new window
22.石世豪(20110600)。釋字第684號解釋撼動特別權力關係之後--正常化的大學校園法制架構「施工中」。法令月刊,62(6),1-12。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.黃錦堂(20110900)。我國特別權力關係的新定向--釋字第653、654與684號解釋之發展。法令月刊,62(9),1-24。new window  延伸查詢new window
24.周志宏(20110301)。告別法治國家的原始森林?--大法官釋字第684號解釋初探。臺灣法學雜誌,171,58-61。  延伸查詢new window
25.劉靜怡、林明昕、尤伯祥(20111200)。社會秩序維護法第89條第2款vs.新聞採訪自由--司法院釋字第689號解釋案釋憲聲請紀實。法令月刊,62(12),1-49。new window  延伸查詢new window
26.莊國榮(20110301)。大學學生行政爭訟權的重要突破--評釋字第684號解釋。臺灣法學雜誌,171,62-73。  延伸查詢new window
27.蔡震榮、戴東盛(20111000)。從釋字684號解釋論法律保留與權利救濟。法學叢刊,56(4)=224,1-24。new window  延伸查詢new window
28.黃錦堂、張文哲(2011)。大學自治與兩種法律保留原則--釋字第563、626 與684號解釋評析。法令月刊,62(6),13-30。  延伸查詢new window
29.王文玲(2011)。「跟追」689號解釋。台灣法學雜誌,184,56-62。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.李建良(201103)。行政法基本十講。台北:新學林。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.蔡茂寅(2002)。行政契約相關問題之研究--以公、私法契約的判準為中心。新世紀經濟法制之建構與挑戰--廖義男教授六秩誕辰祝壽論文集。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
 
QR Code
QRCODE