Utilizing External-Knowledge in Means-Ends Analysis: A Comparative Study on Taiwanese and U.S. Cases Regarding Interdisciplinary Approaches to Constitutional Reasoning

「法外知識」於目的手段審查之運用：科際整合憲法論證方法之臺美比較研究

在基本權案件中，目的手段關聯性分析往往是違憲審查的必備工具。長期以來，此一分析係以文義解釋為核心；但在法律務實主義的影響下，美國聯邦最高法院即在許多案件中採用了科際整合的分析途徑。近年來，臺灣的司法院大法官也有嘗試使用科際整合分析的跡象。本文透過比較臺、美兩國在科際整合途徑上具代表性的憲法案例，突顯此一分析方式超越法系（普通法系／大陸法系）隔閡的、本質上優缺點，呈現科際整合（憲法）法學方法的特殊性。

Means-Ends Analysis (MEA) is an essential stage of human rights cases in constitutional review. Traditionally, this analysis is conducted under formalistic notion; nevertheless, under the influence of legal realism movement, the U.S. Supreme Court had adopted interdisciplinary approaches in many cases. In recent years, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court (TCC) also shows an interest in interdisciplinary approaches occasionally. This essay will focus on some landmark human rights cases under these two jurisdictions. By comparative research, some common strengths as well as weaknesses of interdisciplinary approaches of MEA in constitutional reasoning may be revealed at a fundamental level of constitutional law that are beyond the boundaries of legal traditions (i.e. common law v. civil law). Those strengths and weaknesses may address the essence of interdisciplinary approaches to (constitutional) law as a distinctive legal methodology.