| 英文摘要 |
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.
|
