有關「社會正義」的議題，在我國憲法上，主要是集中在憲法第13章及增修條文第10條之「基本國策」的規定。惟相對於社會正義涉及基本國策條文的規範「內容」，本文所處理者，則是有關該類型之憲法條文如何針對此一規範內容，發揮其誡命作用的規範「效力」問題。在透過德國基本法中「基本權利」與「國家目標規定」，以及歐盟基本權利憲章中「權利」與「原則」之區分的比較法制之觀察後，本文確定：基本國策規定，非往昔所稱的「方針條款」，而係具有法拘束力的憲法規範。其一方面得以提供國家以法律限制人民基本權利的合憲性目的基礎；另一方面亦得基於事物關連性，就相關基本權利的「保護範圍」與「功能」等作內容上的填充。此外，前開已作為基本權利之填充的相關基本國策規定，其除既有的客觀法面向外，是否亦有主觀權利之性質，應依基本權利之相關議題的認定方式作個案判斷，非得全盤予以否定。職是，在我國憲法釋義學上，社會正義之議題，得利用各相關連之基本國策與基本權利等規範類型間的相互制約、填充及回饋之作用處理。至於聯合國各重要人權公約，在內容上常具實現社會正義的正面意義；但其不具憲法效力，故非為司法院大法官違憲審查的依據。不過這些人權公約，卻能以其所蘊含的世界人權標準與普世價值，透過比較法解釋的路徑，填充我國憲法上相關基本權利或基本國策的規範內涵與功能，使這些規範與日俱新。

Issues of social justice are addressed in Chapter 13 of the Constitution and Article 10 of the Amendment to the Constitution regarding ＂fundamental national policies＂. Rather than explaining the ＂content＂ of constitutional norms on fundamental national policies, the purpose of this article is to explore the normative ＂effect＂ of these constitutional norms. Through a comparative analysis of ＂fundamental rights＂ and ＂national goal regulations＂ in the German Basic Law and the distinction between ＂rights＂ and ＂principles＂ in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is argued that constitutional norms on fundamental national policies should be considered norms with direct binding effect, rather than ＂program clauses＂. As norms with direct binding effect, these constitutional norms on fundamental national policies can serve as a constitutional basis for the government to impose legal restrictions on people's fundamental rights. They can also serve a supplementary function in the interpretation of the ＂area of protection＂ and the ＂functions＂ of fundamental rights based on the relatedness of things. The normative nature of these constitutional norms is objective law, but they can also be considered subjective rights, which shall be determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance to the nature of fundamental rights issues involved. It is concluded that the restrictive, supplementary and feedback relationship of the constitutional norms on fundamental national policies and fundamental rights can function to deal with issues of social justice. Important human rights conventions of the United Nation have positive meanings for the realization of social justice, but they cannot serve as the basis for constitutional review due to its lack of constitutional validity. Universal human rights standard and values can still supply the content and function of our constitution through the application of the method of comparative law, so as to keep the norms on fundamental rights and fundamental national policies updated and alive.