權利救濟的有與無：四分之三個世紀憲法解釋裡的文化隔閡

What Are Rights without Remedies?—The Cultural Chasm That Marks 75 Years of Constitutional Interpretations

憲法是為了救濟基本權利而存在的基本規範，藉由司法加以實踐，也需要憲法法庭成員與整體社會認真對待。然而觀察我國憲法解釋的實際景況，因為原本缺乏權利的觀念（否則不會囫圇吞棗而廣泛地接受一個以覇譯王的詞彙），從司法理解及解釋憲法的行為與內容中可以發現，自權利觀念輸入至今，雖然經過了百餘年（1865-）的洗禮與學習，不但保障憲法權利的程序上障礙極多，也經常受到傳統文化中，定於一的道德使命、政府是民之父母，還有國族認同三方面強大而無形的影響，司法尚未普遍、完全參透早已輸入卻迄未生根的法律原理：「得不到救濟的權利，不是權利」，及其所代表的法治價值。

Written Constitutions are a set of fundamental norms whose raison d'être is to supply legal remedies for violation of human rights. The courts have the constitutional mission of championing legal remedies to protect rights, and society as a whole, the constitutional courts in particular, cannot afford to marginalize constitutional rights. However, close examination of the Taiwan Constitutional Court's judicial behaviors or views, often expressed in constitutional interpretations, reveals that though more than a hundred years have passed since the concept of ''rights'' was introduced into the Chinese world, judicial remedies to victims deprived of fundamental rights are constantly deterred by not only procedural hurdles but also traditional cultural inertia from authoritarian influences due to powerful social moral norms, government authorities and nationalism. As a result, the judiciary has yet to fully appreciate the value of the basics of rule of law that imbue William Blackstone's classic quote: ''[E]very right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.''