| 篇名 |
Utilizing External-Knowledge in Means-Ends Analysis: A Comparative Study on Taiwanese and U.S. Cases Regarding Interdisciplinary Approaches to Constitutional Reasoning |
| 並列篇名 |
「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 |
| 作者 |
賈文宇 |
| 中文摘要 |
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。 |
| 英文摘要 |
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. |
| 起訖頁 |
1-51 |
| 關鍵詞 |
憲法、臺灣憲法法院、科際整合法學、法律務實主義、比例原則、Constitutional Law、Taiwan Constitutional Court、Interdisciplinary Approaches、Legal Realism、Proportionality Test |
| 刊名 |
National Taiwan University Law Review |
| 出版單位 |
國立臺灣大學法律學系
|
| 期數 |
201803 (13:1期) |
| DOI |
10.3966/181263242018031301001 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
