Judicial Activism v. Strict Constructionism

司法積極主義與嚴格建構主義

司法積極主義與嚴格建構主義之間的辯論是憲法理論與實踐的相關議題中最為重要者之一。國立台灣大學法律學院非常榮幸邀請到Michael Kirby法官參與本次圓桌論壇，並分享其對於積極主義與建構主義的二分法之洞見。基於他擔任澳洲最高法院法官的經驗，Kirby法官詳盡闡述並質疑普通法傳統中司法積極主義與嚴格建構主義的本旨，並且將其與大陸法傳統相互比較。在回答羅昌發大法官與其他參與者的評論與問題時，Kirby法官並且更進一步解釋積極主義與建構主義的概念，並聚焦於其如何在不同社會與文化脈絡下的國家發生效用之上。

The contest between judicial activism and strict constructionism is one of the most important issues in constitutional theories and practices. National Taiwan University College of Law is honoured to have Honourable Justice Michael Kirby in this roundtable discussion to present his insightful perspective on the dichotomy of activism and constructionism. Based on his experiences as the Justice of the High Court of Australia, Justice Kirby elaborates and questions the nature of judicial activism and strict constructionism in the common law tradition, and compers it with the continental law tradition. In answering to comments and questions raised by Justice Chang-fa Lo and other participants, Justice Kirby explains more on the concepts of activism and constructionism, focusing on their implication in countries with different social and cultural contexts.