國軍懲罰制度中「違紀行為一體性原則」之研究

An Analys i s of the Principle of Uni ty of Di scipl inary Misconduct in the Armed Forces Punishment System

陸海空軍懲罰法於2024年修正時，在第55條首度明文導入「違紀行為一體性原則」，將傳統國軍懲罰制度以「違失行為」為處罰對象之思維，轉變為對違紀軍人本身人格瑕疵所進行的一次性、整體性評價，堪稱我國行政懲罰制度上的重要創舉。此一原則之建構，深受德國公務員、軍人懲戒法制及我國懲戒法院實務見解之影響，其核心理念認為國軍懲罰制度之目的，並非單純回應個別違紀行為，而是在確保軍人與國家間所形成之軍事勤務關係不受侵害。然而，本次修法僅以單一條文規範「違紀行為一體性原則」，其法制設計完整周延與否，及是否足以為懲罰實務即時提供明確可操作的指引，仍有進一步檢驗必要。本文即以該原則之建構原理為研究起點，於現行法制架構下，分析其明文化後所衍生之解釋與適用疑義，並參酌德國相關法制及我國懲戒法院實務見解，提出可能之解決方向與具體建議，期能對國軍懲罰實務於理解與運用「違紀行為一體性原則」時，提供理論與實務上的參考。

When the Armed Forces Punishment Act was amended in 2024, Article 55 expressly introduced and codified the concept of the“Principle of Unity of Disciplinary Misconduct”. This amendment transformed the traditional understanding of military disciplinary sanctions—previously directed at discrete acts of misconduct rather than at the individual—into a framework that conducts a one-time, holistic assessment of the personality defects of the offending servicemember. In doing so, it constitutes an innovative development within Taiwan’s system of administrative sanctions. The shift in the underlying theoretical construction may be attributed to the influence of German law as well as the jurisprudence of Taiwan’s Disciplinary Court, both of which conceive the purpose of the military disciplinary system as ensuring that the military service relationship formed between servicemembers and the State remains unimpaired. However, the 2024 amendment regulates this principle through only a single statutory provision, raising concerns as to whether the legislative framework is sufficiently comprehensive and whether disciplinary practice can promptly obtain adequate operational guidance. Both issues remain to be seen. Taking the theoretical foundations of the principle of unity of disciplinary misconduct as its point of departure, this article seeks to examine the unresolved ambiguities left by its codification within the current legal framework. By further drawing upon German legal doctrine and the jurisprudence of Taiwan’s Disciplinary Court, the article proposes corresponding interpretive solutions, with the aim of contributing to a clearer understanding and more effective application of this principle in military disciplinary practice.