雙重國籍有害忠誠嗎？：二種國民忠誠觀與司法院釋字第768號解釋的反思

Does Dual Citizenship Undermine Loyalty?：Two Constitutional Conceptions of Loyalty and Critical Reflections on J.Y. Interpretation No. 768

本文以司法院釋字第768號解釋為引，藉政治哲學對忠誠與愛國之道德地位的討論，探究可欲之憲法上「國民忠誠」概念觀。該案涉及雙重國籍國民不得擔任公務員之禁令，解釋文以雙重國籍影響公務員對國家之忠誠為由，認禁令合憲，但雙重國籍為何有害忠誠呢？針對此一質疑，個別大法官提供了直觀的理由：雙重國籍國民對另一本國負有維護該國利益之國民忠誠義務，其擔任我國公務員則負有維護我國家利益之忠誠義務，二者間可能發生國家間利益衝突（「利益衝突論」）。本文討論利益衝突論背後預設何種國民忠誠概念觀，指出利益衝突論隱含3個相對強的命題，因之需仰賴如麥金泰爾以國族生存為核心之「國族忠誠觀」，給予理論支持，然而國族忠誠觀對內有壓制多元族群，對外忽略國際法秩序發展之傾向，並非合適的憲法裁判理論工具。本文提出以憲政韌性為核心的「共和忠誠觀」與之競爭，主張國民對國家之忠誠義務，係透過政治參與維持政治自由的體制和憲政民主之運作。這樣的忠誠觀更適合用作憲法裁判之理論資源，而在共和忠誠觀下，雙重國籍者較高之跨國流動資本與選擇放棄共同政治承擔的可能，才是雙重國籍與國民忠誠義務有所連結、可能引發任公職資格疑慮的關鍵。

What would a desirable constitutional conception of loyalty, if ever needed, be? This paper probes the question by examining a less-noticed constitutional case, J.Y. Interpretation No.768 (J.Y. 768), with political theorists’debates about the moral status of loyalty and patriotism. J.Y. 768 upholds a far-reaching ban on people with dual nationality from holding public office because, allegedly, dual nationality would undermine people’s loyalty owed to the state. However, the Court’s decision fails to explain why dual nationality undermines loyalty, which invites severe criticisms from the dissents.
Two concurring justices offer an intuitive response to the critical question: conflicts of national interests. They suggest that nationals owe their country the moral obligation of loyalty, under which they shall safeguard national interests. Should people with dual nationality be public servants, with dual allegiance, they are likely to run into conflicts of national interests in their public duty, hence facing the risk of disloyalty. However, the conflicts-of-interests argument relies on three strong presumptions. First, people owe their country the political obligation of loyalty. Second, loyalty requires people to favour and prioritise their national interests over those of foreign countries. Third, loyalty is indivisible and exclusive. The argument thus necessitates a thick conception of national loyalty, such as MacIntyre’s theory of patriotism which takes national survival as its core. However, MacIntyre’s patriotism is not a suitable theoretical resource for constitutional reasoning due to its tendency to suppress domestic cultural diversity and ignore international legal order and human rights norms. Alternatively, this paper proposes a republican conception of loyalty, which has constitutional resilience as its core. Republican loyalty demands people’s commitment to sustain political freedom and constitutional principles through democratic participation. Dual nationality may bring about a justified concern for holding public office not because of conflicts of national interests but dual nationals’transnational mobility and their ability to relinquish collective political duties and shared consequences.