AI警務科技的「公法上結果除去請求權」與「國家責任請求權」之關係──第一次或第二次權利救濟？

The Relationship between the“Claim for Removal of Results in Public Law”and the“Claim for State Liability”about the AI Policing Technology: The First or Second Right to Remedy?

一旦國家使用失去已經嚴密監控的AI警務技術造成人民發生危害，則公法上危險責任、類似徵收效力之侵害、具有徵收效力之侵害或公益犧牲補償請求權之類型，便顯出其意義，而得向國家請求補償之，亦即請求所謂的第二次權利救濟。然其與公法上結果除去請求權（第一次權利救濟），極易發生競合關係。公法上結果除去請求權在我國是否承認，一直有爭論。第一次權利救濟應否具有優先性，有絕對優先性、雙軌論及相對論之不同主張。國內學者及實務間幾已達成共識，應當揚棄第一次權利保護優先原則。國家賠償法第5條已經提供合理的規範，去適用民法第217條，使得絕對性的第一次權利保護予以相對化。亦即，人民要為其自己故意或過失遲延行政爭訟的法定救濟期間，造成損害之發生或擴大，發生減輕或免除賠償數額之與有過失效果。我國人民應當主張行政訴訟法第7條（附帶損害賠償）或行政訴訟法第8條，來避免是否第一次權利保護優先之爭議風險。同時，也應當讓國家損害賠償或損失補償請求權類型之審判權回歸到行政法院，避免審判二元制的爭議。

Once the country uses the AI policing technology that has been closely monitored to cause harm to the people, the types of hazard liability in public law, infringement with quasi expropriation, infringement with the effect of expropriation, claim for compensation for public sacrifice will show its significance, and can be obtained to ask for the compensation from the state, so-called second right to remedy. However, the compensation from the state is very likely to have a com-and coopetition relationship with the claim for removal of results in public law (the first right to remedy). Whether or not the the claim for removal of results in public law is recognized in my country, has been debated for a long time. Whether the first right to remedy should have priority, there are different propositions about absolute priority, dual-track theory and relativity theory. Domestic scholars and practices have almost reached a consensus that the principle about priority of the first right to remedy should be abandoned. Article 5 of the State Liability Law has provided a reasonable norm to apply to Article 217 of the Civil Law, making the absolute first right to remedy to be relative. That is to say, the people will deliberately or negligently delay the statutory relief period of administrative disputes for themselves, causing the occurrence or expansion of the damage, to reduce or exempt from the amount of compensation because of themselves-negligence effect. The people of our country should claim for Article 7 of the Administrative Litigation Law (Compensation for Collateral Damage) or for Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Law to avoid the risk of dispute over the priority of the first right to remedy. And at the same time, judicial competence about the claim for state liability or compensation should also be allowed to return to the administrative court in order to avoid the controversy over the dual system of judicial competence.