從Adrian Vermeule法理學視角論文化基本法規範性質及其行政彈性

Analyzing the Normative Nature and Administrative Flexibility of the Cultural Fundamental Act from Adrian Vermeule's Jurisprudential Perspective

本文嘗試從Adrian Vermeule的行政國理論（Administrative State）與普通善（Common Good）憲政主義觀點，對於我國文化基本法的意涵進行重新檢視。尤其是該法第28條所稱之法律救濟管道，是否構成行政法上的主觀公權利。
本文首先梳理Vermeule理論與美國「司法退讓」原則（Chevron deference）對行政權的正當化意義，並分析其對我國文化法制的啟示。而從行政治理理性化觀點而言，文化基本法雖建立了完整的文化行政體系，但其規範多屬方針條款性質，難以直接導出具體的請求權內容。
進而，本文檢視文化基本法作為政策宣示性法律，在賦予行政機關裁量權與政策彈性的同時，如何透過專業治理將抽象規範轉化為具體政策與措施。以第9條文化資產保存、補助與徵收等條文為例，說明行政機關如何在多軌管理機制下，結構化裁量並落實文化治理的普通善目標。進一步，本文以「保護規範理論」檢視《文化基本法》作為主觀公權利基礎的困境，指出如「文化近用權」、「文化影響評估」等條文，因權利主體與內容界定不明，難以作為人民請求行政救濟的明確依據，形成具體化與可訴訟性的雙重挑戰。
綜上，本文從Vermeule的理論視角，嘗試釐清《文化基本法》雖較難被解釋為創設完整的主觀公權利體系，但也因而符合現代行政國家的需求，尤其是其確保留行政機關實現文化治理目標所需的彈性，同時也確保了文化政策的公共性導向，進而平衡個人權利保障與普通善的追求。

This article reexamines Taiwan's Cultural Fundamental Act through the lens of Adrian Vermeule's theories on the Administrative State and Common Good Constitutionalism. It particularly explores whether the legal remedies stipulated in Article 28 constitute subjective public rights under administrative law.
The article first outlines the implications of Vermeule's theory and the U.S. judicial principle of Chevron deference for legitimizing administrative authority, subsequently analyzing their relevance to Taiwan's cultural legal framework. From the perspective of rationalizing administrative governance, the Cultural Fundamental Act establishes a comprehensive cultural administration system. However, due to the predominantly guideline-oriented nature of its provisions, it is challenging to derive explicit claims for concrete rights directly from the law.
Furthermore, the article examines how the Cultural Fundamental Act, as a policy-declarative law, grants administrative agencies discretionary power and policy flexibility, enabling them to transform abstract norms into specific policies and measures through professional governance. Using Article 9, which covers cultural asset preservation, subsidies, and expropriation, as an example, the article demonstrates how administrative agencies can structurally exercise discretion under a multi-track management mechanism to achieve the common good objectives of cultural governance. Additionally, the article employs the ''protective norm theory'' to highlight the challenges in establishing the Cultural Fundamental Act as a basis for subjective public rights. It identifies that provisions such as ''cultural access rights'' and ''cultural impact assessments'' suffer from ambiguity in defining rights holders and content, presenting dual challenges of concretization and litigability in administrative remedies.
In conclusion, the article attempts to clarify from Vermeule's theoretical perspective that although the Cultural Fundamental Act may not easily be interpreted as establishing a comprehensive system of subjective public rights, it appropriately meets the needs of the modern administrative state by preserving the flexibility necessary for administrative agencies to realize cultural governance objectives, while ensuring a public-oriented approach to cultural policy, thus balancing individual rights protection with the pursuit of the common good.