英文摘要 |
The terms 'administrative deposition' and 'legal order' are clearly defined in article 3 in Administrative Appeal Act, article 92 and 150 in Administrative Procedure Act. However, in the field of practice, there are disputes about whether 'traffic signs' are administrative depositions or legal orders. The nature of traffic signs needs to be determined because it differs administrative remedy. This journal first introduces the concepts of 'general disposition' and the differences between general disposition and legal order, in order to clarify the nature of traffic signs. After that, there is a further discussion about the administrative remedy. This is the research scope of this journal. Traffic signs, including 'Signs', 'Markings', and 'Signals', have different functions as warning, instructing and banning. Only banning traffic signs have legal binding power. In the practice field, the general opinion is that banning signals are general dispositions. But there are controversies over the natures of banning signs and banning markings. This journal holds that the natures of banning signs and banning markings are the special legal systems which lie between legal orders and administrative deposition. Therefore, it is hard to sort them into any category. Under the premise to provide the public sufficient legal remedies and to steady legal order, it seems comparatively reasonable to determine the natures of banning signs and banning markings as general depositions. Also, this fulfills the intension of article 16 in Constitution, which protects the right of presenting petitions, lodging complaints, or instituting legal proceedings. To clarify the disputes above, it is better to seek for legislation. And when there is need for administrative remedy resulted from traffic signs, we should take appropriate and corresponding measures according to their natures. |