台灣是由多族群組成的多元文化社會，但從台灣光復以來以迄解嚴，都是朝向「單一民族」（即所謂的「中華民族」）的法制建構，期間，雖有以蒙藏、山胞等特定族群為對象之行政及立法，但其內容帶有濃厚的民族融合、同化色彩，且族群互動關係並未取得制度內之接受。解嚴後，各類型族群建構及族群認同運動勃興，多民族及多元文化的議題，在各領域蓬勃開展，各類型的族群爭議層出不窮，卻缺乏族群爭議調和機制，因此，遂有族群關係制度化（法制化）之芻議，也帶來原住民族法制建構的契機。憲法增修條文的10 條第12 項及原住民族基本法第34 條之規定，已隱含建立原住民族法體系的期待，意即從憲法的上位規範，到原住民族基本法的指導性規定，並參酌國際有關原住民族權利之標準，逐步透過法律之制定、修正，建立完整的原住民族法律體系，系統化、穩定化原住民族權利的保障，並重新定位原住民族與國家的關係。原住民族法律體系是國家法律體系的一個獨特部門，該體系有自己獨特的原則，在該原則的指導下，發展成為整全的體系，而該體系和國家法律體系屬於內在統一的有機聯繫體。再則，原住民族的法與國家法是二個截然不同卻彼此相遇的法律文化，在衝撞調適過程中解釋原住民族權利之最大挑戰，在於解釋過程中應優先提供哪一種法律文化的觀點？而為了在道德上及政治上均具有辯護力，原住民族權利的定義必須包含二個法律文化的觀點。因此，本文探討建構原住民族法體系此一課題，先回顧台灣光復後我國法制建設情形，進而探究憲法增修條文及原住民族基本法有關原住民族法體系的建構原則，以及原住民族傳統習慣法，以探尋未來原住民族法律體系建構的方向。

Taiwan has been a multicultural society. However, since 1945, Taiwan's law making has been based on one nation (which is the Chinese nation). During the 1990s, the rising of multi-nations and multiculturalism has lightened up hope for indigenous law making. Article 10 Clause 12 of the Amendment of the Constitution and Article 34 of the Indigenous Basic Law are the ground rule for indigenous rights, to stabilize indigenous rights and re-position the relationship between indigenous peoples and the state, state shall establish a sound legal system for indigenous peoples in consult with international standards of indigenous rights. However, indigenous legal system and the state law have two different law cultures, when indigenous law contradict the state law, which law culture comes first? To be able to stand morally and politically, the definition of indigenous rights must contain two law cultures. Hence, this paper tries to find out the new direction for establish indigenous legal system by examining the principle of establish indigenous legal system in the process of indigenous law making.