比較法方法與 大法官個人意見書

Comparative Law Method and the Individual Opinions of Grand Justices

比較憲法的研究取向，根據學者Ran Hirschl整理，大約可分為四種取向。本文將指出，臺灣主流的憲法研究取向，屬於第二種的「先進國家與我國比較」。但實際上臺灣因為積極地想吸取先進國家經驗，因此重點不在比較，而認為特定國家的憲法原則、先例就是好的。其次，本文欲討論大法官對外國法的參考援引。本文將說明臺灣大法官引用外國法的主要原因，就是其教育背景與多年擔任學者的習慣造成。最後，本文將透過簡單的統計與表格，說明從2003年新制度下至今，每年作成的大法官解釋速度持續下降，而大法官提出個人意見書的比率，同時持續增高。同時，在個人意見書中對外國法的引用，也持續增加，甚至，同樣留學德國的大法官，各自在個人意見書中引述德國法學原則，卻無法整合。本文將指出，個人意見書提出頻率如此之高，充斥不同大法官個人對外國法的援引，對於整個釋憲制度，有利有弊。

According the Ran Hirschl’s categorization, there are four approaches in comparative studies of constitutionallaw. In the first part, this article will point that, the main stream of comparative studies in Taiwan’s is second approach, which is to compare Taiwan with some particular established constitutional democracies such as the United States and Germany. Actually this approach’s purpose is not to compare but to learn the experience from these better constitutional democracies, and it presupposed that the judgements and academic theories in those countries are better than us. In the second part, the phenomenon that judges refer foreign laws in their judgements will be discussed. I will explain the main reason that the grand justices in Taiwan refer foreign law or theory in their personal opinions is that their educational background and their writing habit as academic life. In the third part, I will use statistics to portray a new phenomenon. Since 2003, the number of grand justice’s constitutional interpretations each year keeps decreasing, and the number each Justice’s personal opinions keeps increasing. At the same period, Justices refer foreign laws more and more times in their personal opinions, and even those Justices have German-learning background didn’t cooperate to write single opinion or enter into each other’s, but rather prefer write their own opinions. There are advantages and disadvantages about the phenomenon afore mentioned. Finally, some suggestions will be discussed and proposed.