這篇文章的目標在於探討與排灣部落繼承議題有關的多元法律 規範及其間之互動，以及排灣族人於此規範架構之下的處境。本文收 集並分析各地方法院之相關裁判書，並針對身為排灣族人之鄉鎮調解 委員會委員、曾協助處理排灣族繼承相關糾紛之律師們，以及排灣族 人進行深度訪談。本文發現，法官們、律師們以及地方調解委員們曾 以各種方式嘗試抵抗具有支配霸權的國家制定法以保留「長嗣繼承」 的社區律法。然而，根據民法第一條的規定，整體上國家制定法還是 享有較社區律法更為優越的法源地位。因此，排灣族原住民的法律地 位並未獲得改善。此外，多數身為家中長嗣的受訪者相信「長嗣繼承」 的習慣法應予以成文法化，但多數身為家中餘嗣的受訪者對於此一習 慣法之成文法化則傾向於抱持較為保留的態度。而且，此一習慣法的 拘束力已受到漢人父系社會文化、主流社會對原住民文化之污名化、 以及西方基督教文化的逐漸破壞。本文亦發現，在排灣部落裡所踐行 的「家庭會議」糾紛排解機制可能是一個能夠協助解決排灣族人繼承 糾紛的一個極佳的替代性糾紛解決機制。依據法律多元主義的論述， 以及根源於公民與政治權利國際公約第一條，還有經濟社會文化權利 公約第一條的民族自決概念，本文主張，是否以及應透過何種方式將 長嗣繼承的習慣法予以成文法化，應由排灣族人全體（包括長嗣與餘 嗣）來決定。

The aim of this article is to explore the interaction of plural legal orders concerning the issue of inheritance in Paiwan tribes and the position of the Paiwanese people under such regulatory frameworks. Relevant cases collected from the district courts are analyzed, and the in-depth interviews with Paiwanese mediators, indigenous people and lawyers who dealt with relevant disputes are carried out. This article finds that judges, lawyers and local mediators resist hegemonic state law and try to preserve the community law of vusam inheritance in a variety of ways. However, state law enjoys a superior status over community law in terms of Article 1 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the legal status of indigenous peoples still cannot be improved. Moreover, the majority of interviewees who were the vusams of the family believed that the customary law of vusam inheritance should be codified, while most of the interviewees who were the younger siblings in the family tended to hold a more cautious attitude towards the codification of such customary law. Additionally, the binding force of such a customary law has been undermined by the patriarchal culture of Han people, the stigmatization of indigenous culture, and Christianity. It is also found that the dispute-resolution mechanism of “family council” practices in the Paiwan tribes might be an excellent alternative to settling the inheritance disputes of Paiwanese people. This article argues that Paiwanese people, including the vusams and younger siblings, should be able to determine whether and how the customary rule of vusam inheritance should be encoded as a statute, according to the discourse of legal pluralism and the concept of self-determination embedded in Article 1 of both ICCPR and the ICESCR.