政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/147291

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/147291

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文笔数/总笔数 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造访人次 : 51079909 在线人数 : 983

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜寻范围

查询小技巧：

您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果

若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据

进阶搜寻

主页 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上传 ‧ 说明 ‧ 关于政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手机版

政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/147291

请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147291

题名:	寬容與當代憲政秩序：福斯特的寬容批判理論研究 Toleration and Contemporary Constitutionalism: A Study of Forst’s Critical Theory of Toleration
作者:	林懋棋 Lin, Mao-Chi
贡献者:	江玉林 Chiang, Yu-Lin 林懋棋 Lin, Mao-Chi
关键词:	寬容批判理論福斯特正義基本權 Toleration Critical theory Forst Justice Fundamental right
日期:	2023
上传时间:	2023-09-01 16:26:59 (UTC+8)
摘要:	寬容的概念無論是在歷史上、學術上或者是公共生活的日常語言中，皆扮演相當重要的角色，然而其內涵與應用卻相當複雜。一方面，寬容既可能作為一種個人德性也可能作為一種政治實踐；另一方面，寬容既可能具有促成解放的作用，也可能作為權力關係當中的規訓技術。有鑑於此，本文擬以當代法蘭克福學派代表人物萊納・福斯特（Rainer Forst）的寬容批判理論作為核心，說明其如何討論寬容的內涵、判準以及對社會現實權力關係的批判性檢驗。此外，作為一篇法學論文，本文介紹福斯特對寬容的討論，背後關切的是此政治哲學的寬容如何具體應用於法律領域，就此而言，本文將聚焦在寬容與憲政秩序當中基本權的關係。在架構上，本論文首先將藉由德國聯邦憲法法院十字架判決和第一次頭巾判決，來說明當涉及基本權衝突時，法律學界、審判實務和公共討論中如何表述寬容。接著，本論文將討論福斯特的寬容批判理論，福斯特認為正義的道德基礎是要求證成的權利，並區分了四種寬容觀，其中唯有尊敬的寬容觀能夠確保每個人要求證成的權利。在闡明完福斯特的理論後，本論文將說明福斯特如何以其理論檢驗十字架判決、第一次頭巾判決和第二次頭巾判決，並說明福斯特的寬容理論與應用，在宗教自由基本權衝突的問題上，能夠提供法律人什麼反思。本文將主張，福斯特要求證成的權利和尊敬的寬容觀，可分別對應到人性尊嚴和寬容誡命的使用，且寬容誡命應作為立法者限制基本權時所遇到的界限。在說明完福斯特寬容批判理論的基本立場，以及我們如何應用於宗教自由基本權衝突中後，本論文也將討論歐洲人權法院對十字架和頭巾的判決，本文將主張，面對宗教自由的問題，較好的解決方式還是以內國法的基本權保障為主。隨後，本論文將比較法哲學家亞圖・考夫曼（Arthur Kaufmann）和福斯特的寬容理論，本文認為，考夫曼把寬容原則放在社會正義的層次上，可幫助我們反思寬容在宗教自由以外問題的使用。本文將主張，考夫曼的寬容原則，搭配福斯特要求證成的權利以及林佳和對社會國原則的研究，可提供一個我們在憲政秩序內面對社會現實權力關係的應用可能。最後，藉由江玉林的法律考古學研究，以及溫蒂・布朗（Wendy Brown）和福斯特的辯論，本文將回過頭來反思，當我們在提倡寬容時，必須注意到寬容在國家中立原則出現的歷史上，更多扮演的是規訓而非解放的角色，且這種作用在當代依然存在。本文將主張，必須正視寬容可能存在的規訓面向，才能更好地理解如何將福斯特的理論應用於憲政秩序之中。 The concept of toleration has played a very important role in history, academia, and the public discourse of daily life, but its theory and practice are quite complicated. On the one hand, tolerance may serve as a personal virtue or as a political practice; on the other hand, tolerance may have the effect of promoting emancipation, or it may serve as a disciplinary technique in power relations. In view of this, this article intends to study on the critical theory of toleration of Rainer Forst, who is a leading scholar of the contemporary Frankfurt School, and explain how it discusses the concept, conception and criteria of toleration, as well as the critical examination of power relations in social reality. In addition, behind my research on Forst, my concern is how toleration is specifically applied in the legal domain. In this regard, this article will focus on the relationship between toleration and fundamental rights in the constitutional order. In terms of structure, this thesis will first Draw on German Federal Constitutional Court`s crucifix decision and the first headscarf decision to illustrate how toleration is articulated in jurisprudence, judicial review and public discourse when it comes to fundamental rights conflicts. This thesis then discusses Forst`s critical theory of toleration. Forst’s main idea is that the moral foundation of justice is the right to justification, he then distinguishes four conceptions of toleration, in which he proposes the respect conception of toleration, which in his view is the best conception for the guarantee of the right to justification. After elaborating Forst`s theory, this thesis will illustrate how Forst uses his theory to examine crucifix decision, the first headscarf decision and the second headscarf decision, and what implications can Forst`s critical theory of toleration can provide for religious freedom’s jurisprudence. I will argue that the right to justification and the respect conception of toleration can be applied to human dignity and the precept of toleration, and the precept of toleration is the limit for legislators in limiting fundamental rights. This thesis will also discuss European Court of Human Rights’ decision on religious freedom, especially Dahlab v. Switzerland and Lautsi v. Italy. I will argue that when it comes to religious freedom’s issue, the better place to strike a balance in fundamental rights conflicts is domestic jurisdiction. This thesis then provide a comparison between legal philosophers Arthur Kaufmann and Rainer Forst. Kaufmann considers the principle of toleration as a principle to realize social justice, thus his theory can provide us implications of what role toleration play in cases in which the religious freedom is not the main concern. I will argue that Kaufmann`s principle of toleration, combined with Forst`s the right to justification and Jia-He Lin`s study of the principle of welfare state, can provide us a way to critically analyses the power relations in society. Finally, drawing on the legal archaeology of Yu-Lin Chiang and the debate between Wendy Brown and Rainer Forst, this thesis will illustrate that when advocating for toleration, it is important to note that toleration has played more of a disciplinary than an emancipating role in the history, especially at the time when state neutrality just about to emerge, and that thie disciplinary role toleration has played still exists in the contemporary society. I will argue that it is necessary to take the possible disciplinary aspects of toleration into full consideration in order to better understand how Forst`s theory can be applied to the constitutional order.
參考文獻:	壹、中文文獻（照筆劃排列）一、專書吳庚、盛子龍（2020），行政法之理論與實用，增訂十六版，台北：三民。周保松（2017），自由人的平等政治，2版，北京：三聯書店。許育典（2013），宗教自由與宗教法，2版，台北：元照。陳妙芬（2021），法哲學：自然法研究，台北：聯經。張嘉尹（2015），憲法學的新視野（二）——憲法科技整合研究的理論與實踐，台北：五南。黃涵榆（2021），閱讀生命政治，台北：春山。黃舒芃（2020），什麼是法釋義學？以二次戰後德國憲法釋義學的發展為借鏡，台北：臺大。顏厥安（1998），法與實踐理性，台北：允晨。二、專書論文江玉林（2006），法理學考古初探——從當代知識社會學談起，收於：法律哲理與制度（基礎法學）—馬漢寶教授八秩華誕祝壽論文集，頁61-86，台北：元照。江玉林（2022），人性尊嚴的崇高莊嚴與憲法文化涵養——康德美學與當代憲政秩序的對話，收於：法學的想像：蘇永欽教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集，〔第四卷〕社科法學，頁85-99，台北：元照。李東穎（2018），宗教多元環境下宗教自由界定之難題──以德國聯邦憲法法院裁判為觀察對象，收於：台灣公法學的墊基與前瞻：城仲模教授八秩華誕祝壽論文集（上冊），頁251-276，台北：新學林。李震山（2007），憲法意義下之寬容理念，收於：李震山，多元、寬容與人權保障——以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心，2版，頁69-95，台北：元照。李震山（2007），程序基本權，收於：李震山，多元、寬容與人權保障——以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心，2版，頁261-290，台北：元照。李震山（2007），集體權，收於：李震山，多元、寬容與人權保障——以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心，2版，頁293-319，台北：元照。李震山（2007），基因科技發展與基本權利保障，收於：李震山，多元、寬容與人權保障——以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心，2版，頁389-448，台北：元照。李震山（2007），結論與建議，收於：李震山，多元、寬容與人權保障——以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心，2版，頁451-460，台北：元照。吳豐維（2010），如何為政治與道德劃界？——重啓哈伯馬斯與羅爾斯的論辯，收於：黃瑞祺主編，溝通、批判與實踐：哈伯馬斯八十論集，頁549-576，台北：允晨。林超駿（2004），初論多元文化主義（Multiculturalism）作為我國原住民權益保障之理論基礎—以Will Kymlicka與其對手間之辯論為起點，收於：法治與現代行政法學：法治斌教授紀念論文集，頁309-341，台北：元照。林遠澤（2010），論哈伯瑪斯溝通理性建築學的法權定位，收於：黃瑞棋主編，哈伯馬斯80論集，頁83-123，台北：允晨。胡適（2018），容忍與自由，收於潘光哲主編，胡適全集：胡適時論集8，頁109-113，台北：中央研究院近代史研究所。殷海光（1985），胡適論「容忍與自由」讀後，收於殷海光先生文集（二）：海光先生逝世十週年紀念，五版，台北：桂冠。莊世同（2008），合法性與整全性——對德沃金法治觀的審視與反思，收於：王鵬翔主編，2008法律思想與社會變遷，頁45-84，台北：中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。陳新民（1998），立法者的「審慎義務」與釋憲者的「填補」任務-由德國聯邦憲法法院「教室十字架案」談起，收於：劉孔中、李建良編，憲法解釋之理論與實務，頁93-119，台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。黃舒芃（2013），違憲審查中之立法形成空間，收於：框架秩序下的國家權力——公法學術論文集，頁391-394，台北：新學林。劉幸義（2004），多元價值、寬容與反抗權——理論與實踐經驗，收於：劉幸義，法治國家與法律效力：法理學論文集2，頁189-204，台北：翰蘆。鄭善印（2004），寬容原則與刑法，收於：劉幸義編，多元價值、寬容與法律：Arthur Kaufmann教授紀念集，頁576-592，台北：五南。三、期刊論文江玉林（1999），社群主義在德國法哲學上的探討及其影響-從德國聯邦憲法法院的十字架判決談起，月旦法學雜誌，51期，頁197-201。江玉林（2002），近代初期國家的塑造，社會的規訓化應憲法史的論述－論萊茵哈德「國家權力的歷史」一書中的權力建構過程，月旦法學雜誌，82期，頁238-247。江玉林（2003），人、法的主體與法律的考古——從張光直「蕃薯人的故事」也談法律的故事，月旦法學教室，12期，頁110-121。江玉林（2005），凱爾生、考古學與法學的論述格局——從大法官處理宗教自由與國家權力衝突的相關論述談起，政大法學評論，85期，頁1-58。江玉林（2006），司法圖騰與法律意識的繼受——在正義女神與包青天相遇之後，法制史研究，9期，頁275-291。江玉林（2007），劍、暴力與法律——從利維坦的圖像談起，法制史研究，12期，頁195-212。江玉林（2009），近代初期教派化運動與神聖羅馬帝國國家法學，法制史研究，15期，頁185-203。江玉林（2012），《性事的歷史・卷一：求知的意志》導讀——傅柯的權力分析與對現代法學的權力批判，台灣法學雜誌，207期，頁114-129。江玉林（2016），人性尊嚴的移植與混生——臺灣憲政秩序的價值格局，月旦法學雜誌，255期，頁64-74。吳志光（2017），從本土化的宗教現象論宗教的定義——兼評最高行政法院104年度判字第10號判決，台灣法學雜誌，333期，頁88-94。吳澤玫（2008），論羅爾斯的公共理性觀，國立臺灣大學哲學論評，36期，頁193-236。李建良（1997），基本權利理論體系之構成及其思考層次，人文及社會科學集刊，第9卷第1期，頁39-83。林佳和（2012），真的有國際人權法指涉的普世人權？政治哲學世界公民主義（Kosmopolitismus）與特殊公民主義（Partikularismus）論戰下的人權圖像落差，台灣國際法季刊，第9卷第4期，頁115-145。黃忠正（2013），論Radbruch公式，收於政大法學評論，132期，頁115-162。黃舒芃（2012），「不確定法律概念」是一種「法律」概念嗎？——從德國行政法的新近發展反思不確定法律概念的制度功能，憲政時代第37卷第4期，頁491-514。許育典、周敬凡（2006），從德國聯邦憲法法院「頭巾判決」論學校的宗教中立，臺大法學論叢，第35卷第6期，頁117-167。陳愛娥（1997），自由－平等－博愛——社會國原則與法治國原則的交互作用，臺大法學論叢，26期，頁121-141。傅玲靜（2019），源自立法者授權之行政機關判斷餘地——台北高等行政法院106年訴字第1057號判決評析，月旦裁判時報，81期，頁5-14。詹鎮榮（2006），社會國原則——起源、內涵及規範效力，月旦法學教室，41期，頁32-41。四、碩士論文郭蕙心（2016），正義脈絡與論證權利：以健康照護為對象的理論反思，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。趙一穎（2022），布萊克史東法律思想中的自然法學與政治體理論，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文。五、研究報告林佳和（2022），台灣產業移工管制與保障之比較研究，國家人權委員會委託研究成果報告書。六、翻譯書和文章 Ulfrid Neumann 著，陳顯武譯（2010），導論，收於：劉靜芬、林振煌主編，自我負責人格之法律——Arthur Kaufmann的法律哲學，頁3-17，台北：五南。 José de Sousa e Brito 著，江玉林譯（2010），考夫曼的正義論與倫理學基礎，收於：劉靜芬、林振煌主編，自我負責人格之法律——Arthur Kaufmann的法律哲學，頁37-71，台北：五南。阿克塞爾・霍耐特著，張曦、孫逸凡譯（2021），我們中的我：承認理論研究，南京：譯林。亞圖・考夫曼著，劉幸義等譯（2000），法律哲學，台北：五南。康德著，李明輝譯注（2013），答「何謂啟蒙？」之問題，收於：康德歷史哲學論文集，台北：聯經。康德著，李秋零譯（2019），實踐理性批判。楊子慧譯（2006），「頭巾案」判決（Urteil），收於：德國聯邦憲法法院裁判選輯（十二），頁87-124，台北：司法院。七、網路資源朱健民原譯，陳沖增、張桐銳等人增譯（2012），德意志聯邦共和國基本法中文翻譯：https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwitgru9yoH_AhV1rVYBHQy0AoYQFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.judicial.gov.tw%2Ftw%2Fdl-79659-8911ef7e8ac140a2a30034ba643cb9b8.html&usg=AOvVaw1y0WQUgFK2FZuNncYJ8gpP. 吳澤玫 (2020)。〈羅爾斯〉，王一奇（編），《華文哲學百科》（2020 版本）。URL=http://mephilosophy.ccu.edu.tw/entry.php?entry_name=羅爾斯。賴昀（2019），政大學者林佳和引威瑪共和警告臺灣：當年其實很多德國人覺得希特勒是「草包」，Watchout沃草，2019年7月17日發布，2019年7月19日最後更新，https://watchout.tw/reports/R4R3FZVKnV7AXdfl0dsd(最後瀏覽日：2022 年 12 月 17 日)。貳、英文文獻（照字母順序排列）一、專書 Agamben, Giorgio. translated by Heller-Roazen, Daniel. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. California: Stanford University Press. Barry, Brian. 2004. Justice as Impartiality. 2nd. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beck, Lewis White. 1969. Early German Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors. Harvard: Belknap Press. Brown, Wendy. 2008. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Brown, Wendy and Forst, Rainer, Di Blasi, Lucaand, and Holzhey, Christoph F. E., eds. 2014. The Power of Tolerance: A Debate. New York: Columbia University Press. Burke, Peter. 2019. Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. Forst, Rainer. translated by Farrell, J. 2002. Contexts of Justice: Political Philosophy beyond Liberalism and Communitarianism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Cronin, C.. 2013. Toleration in Conflict: Past and Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Cronin, C.. 2013. Justification and Critique: Towards a Critical Theory of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Forst, Rainer. 2014. Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification: Rainer Forst in Dialogue. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Gillespie, Michael. 2008. The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Honneth, Axel. translated by Ganahl, Joseph. 2014. Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. New York: Columbia University Press. Kant, Immanuel. translated by Guyer , Paul and Wood, Allen W.. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kantorowicz, Ernst H.. 2016. The King Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. King, Preston. 1998. Toleration. 2nd.. London: Frank Cass. Kommers , Donald P. and Miller, Russell A.. 2012. The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. 3rd.. North Carolina: Duke University press. Luther, Martin. translated by Packer, J. I. and Johnston, O. R.. 2012. The Bondage of the Will, Michigan: Baker Academic. O’ Halloran, Kerry. 2021. State Neutrality: The Sacred, the Secular and Equality Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popper, Karl. 1947. The Open Society and its Enemies Volume 1: The Spell of Plato. London: Butler&Tanner Ltd. Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. revised edition. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism. 3rd. New York: Columbia University Press. Waldron, Jeremy. 2002. God, Locke and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke’s Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber, Max. 1959. translated by Gerth, Hans H.. The Religion of China. USA: The Free Press. 二、專書論文 Brown, Wendy. 2001. Reflections on Tolerance in the Age of Identity. Pp. 9-117 in Democracy and Vision: Sheldon Wolin and Vicissitudes of the Political. edited by Aryeh Botwinick & William E. Connolly. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Brugger, Winfried. 2007. Structural Norms and Constitutional Rights in Church-State-Relations. Pp. 23-86 in Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law. edited by Winfried Brugger & Michael Karayanni. Heidelberg: Springer. D. Evans, Malcolm. 2008. Freedom of religion and the European Convention on Human Rights: approaches, trends and tensions, Pp. 291-315 in Law and Religion in Theoretical and Historical Context. edited by Peter Cane & Carolyn Evans & Zoe Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forst, Rainer. 2003. Toleration, Justice and Reason. Pp. 71-85 in The Culture of Toleration in Diverse Societies: Reasonable Toleration. edited by Catriona McKinnon & Dario Castiglione. UK: Manchester University Press. Forst, Rainer. 2008. Pierre Bayle`s Reflexive Theory of Toleration, Pp. 78-113 in Toleration and its Limits (Nomos XLVIII). edited by M. Williams and J. Waldron. New York: New York University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Flynn, Jeffrey. 2012. Introduction: The Foundation of Justice. Pp. 1-9 in The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Flynn, Jeffrey. 2012. Practical Reason and Justifying Reasons: On the Foundation of Morality. Pp. 13-42 in The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Flynn, Jeffrey. 2012. Moral Autonomy and The Autonomy of Morality: Toward A Theory of Normativity After Kant. Pp. 43-61 in The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Flynn, Jeffrey. 2012. Ethics and Morality. Pp. 62-78 in The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Flynn, Jeffrey. 2012. A Critical Theory of Multicultural Toleration. Pp. 138-154 in The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Flynn, Jeffrey. 2012. Social Justice, Justification and Power. Pp. 188-200 in The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Flynn, Jeffrey. 2012. The Basic Right to Justification: Toward a Constructivist Conception of Human Rights. Pp. 203-228 in The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Cronin, Ciaran. 2018. Introduction: Orders of Justification: On the Relationship between Philosophy, Social Theory, and Criticism. Pp. 1-18 in Normativity and Power: Analyzing Social Orders of Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forst, Rainer. translated by Cronin, Ciaran. 2018. One Court and Many Cultures Jurisprudence in Conflict. Pp. 105-117 in Normativity and Power: Analyzing Social Orders of Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Habermas, Jurgen. translated by Lenhardt, C. and Nicholsen, S. Weber. 1990. Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification, Pp. 43-115 in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press. Heinig, Hans Michael. 2007. The Headscarf of a Muslim Teacher in German Public Schools. Pp. 181-197 in Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law. edited by Winfried Brugger & Michael Karayanni. Heidelberg: Springer. Klatt, Matthias. 2019. Proportionality and Justification. Pp. 159-198 in Constitutionalism Justified: Rainer Forst in Discourse. edited by Ester Herlin-Karnell and Matthias Klatt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Locke, John. 2010. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Pp. 1-68 in John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration and Other Writings. edited by David Womersley. Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc. Marcuse, Herbert. 1965. Repressive Tolerance. Pp. 81-117 in A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Boston: Beacon Press. O’ Neill, Onora. 2003. Constructivism in Rawls and Kant. Pp. 347-367 in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. edited by Samuel Freeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raz, Joseph. 1988. Autonomy, Toleration and the Harm Principle. Pp. 155-175 in Justifying Toleration: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. edited by Susan Mendus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walter, Christian. 2007. From the Acceptance of Interdenominational Christian Schools to the Inadmissibility of Christian Crosses in the Public Schools. Pp. 165-180 in Religion in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of German, Israeli, American and International Law. edited by Winfried Brugger & Michael Karayanni. Heidelberg: Springer. Watson, Geoffrey R.. 2015. Secularism Resurrected? The European Court of Human Rights after Lautsi, Pp. 135-152 in Secularism, Catholicism, and the Future of Public Life: A Dialogue with Ambassador Douglas W. Kmiec. edited by Gary J. Adler. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 三、期刊論文 Fish, Stanley. 1997. Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds between Church and State. Columbia Law Review Vol. 97, No. 8: 2255-2332. Forst, Rainer. 2016. The Justification of Basic Rights: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy issue 3: 7-28. Honneth, Axel. 2017. Beyond the Law: A Response to William Scheuerman. Constellations Vol. 24 No. 1: 126-132. Horton, John. 1994. Three (Apparent) Paradoxes of Toleration. Synthesis Philosophica Vol. 17: 7-20. Mahlmann, Matthias. 2003. Religious Tolerance, Pluralist Society and the Neutrality of the State: The Federal Constitutional Court’s Decision in the Headscarf Case. German Law Journal Vol.04 No. 11: 1099-1116. Minow, Martha. 1990. Putting Up and Putting Down: Tolerance Reconsidered. Osgoode Hall Law Journal Vol. 28, No. 2: 409-448. Nagel, Thomas. 1987. Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy. Philosophy & Public Affairs Vol. 16 No. 3: 215-240. Raz, Joseph. 1990. Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence, Philosophy & Public Affairs Vol. 19, No. 1: 3- 46. Sandel, Michael. 1989. Moral Argument and Liberal Toleration: Abortion and Homosexuality. California Law Review Vol. 77 No. 3: 521-538. 四、網路資源 Augustine of Hippo, Letter 93 §10, translated by J.G. Cunningham, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm （最後瀏覽日：2023年1月7日）。. Case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey paragraph 39, paragraph 116-123 (2005) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-70956%22]} （最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Case of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey (Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwin9sWyqoH_AhXptFYBHZtaBOwQFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fiilj.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2FRefah-Partisi-v.-Turkey.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3YO5o0ruqdrNP3rrBB2CfK（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Chamber Judgement, Case of Kokkinakis v. Greece (Application no. 14307/88), https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi16sjfiYH_AhVQEnAKHQ1ZBRcQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhudoc.echr.coe.int%2Fapp%2Fconversion%2Fdocx%2F%3Flibrary%3DECHR%26id%3D001-57827%26filename%3DCASE%2520OF%2520KOKKINAKIS%2520v.%2520GREECE.docx%26logEvent%3DFalse&usg=AOvVaw1zcGafkVVn73SFqOVJPIhf（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Council of Europe, Protection for religious freedom after church banned from existence, https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/protection-for-religious-freedom-after-church-banned-from-existence（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月14日）。 Dahlab v. Switzerland Decision, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjp-NXShYH_AhUxm1YBHYEKAmcQFnoECBIQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhudoc.echr.coe.int%2Fapp%2Fconversion%2Fdocx%2F%3Flibrary%3DECHR%26id%3D001-22643%26filename%3DDAHLAB%2520v.%2520SWITZERLAND.docx%26logEvent%3DFalse%23%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%2520Federal%2520Court%2520had%2520held%2Cof%2520pupils%2520who%2520wore%2520veils.&usg=AOvVaw1v13nOPIm6vTvcvRFRLK4F. （最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Former First Section Judgement, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v. Moldova (Application no. 45701/99), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-59985&filename=CASE%20OF%20METROPOLITAN%20CHURCH%20OF%20BESSARABIA%20AND%20OTHERS%20v.%20MOLDOVA.docx&logEvent=False（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Forst, Rainer. 2017. Toleration, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/#ConTolPar.（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Grand Chamber Judgement, Case of Lauts and others v. Italy (Application no. 30814/06), https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjiuo-ch4H_AhWXmFYBHcYIAJEQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhudoc.echr.coe.int%2Fapp%2Fconversion%2Fpdf%2F%3Flibrary%3DECHR%26id%3D001-104040%26filename%3D001-104040.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2VNZnB_-xJAXfftKe41K_u. （最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Kurtulmuş v. Turkey Decision（2006）https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/pdf?library=ECHR&id=001-88325&filename=KURTULMUŞ%20v.%20TURKEY.pdf&logEvent=False.（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Normative Orders Research Centre of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main website：https://www.normativeorders.net/en/.（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Rainer Forst’s personal page on Goethe University Frankfurt am Main website：https://www.goethe-university-frankfurt.de/46639912/Prof__Dr__Rainer_Forst.（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。參、德文文獻一、專書 Bumke, Christian & Voßkuhle, Andreas (2008), Casebook Verfassungsrecht 5. Auflage, München: C. H. Beck Verlag. Forst, Rainer (2003), Toleranz im Konflikt. Geschichte, Gehalt und Gegenwart eines umstrittenen Begriffs, Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag. Forst, Rainer (2007), Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag. 二、期刊論文 Ute Sacksofsky (2003), Die Kopftuch-Entscheidung - von der religiösen zur föderalen Vielfalt, in NJW 2003, S. 3297-3301. Ute Sacksofsky (2008), Religiöse Freiheit als Gefahr?, in Erosion von Verfassungsvoraussetzungen, S. 8-46. 三、判決 Religiös motiviertes Tragen eines Kopftuchs als Eignungskriterium für Lehramtsbewerberin NJW 2001, 2899-2905. VG Stuttgart: Tragen eines Kopftuchs im Unterricht durch Lehrerin, in NVwZ 2000, S. 959-961. Verbot des Unterrichtens mit „islamischem Kopftuch”, in NJW 2002, 3344-3346. Verfassungsmäßigkeit der christlichen Gemeinschaftsschule, in NJW 1976, 947-950. Verfassungsmäßigkeit des Schulgebets an bekenntnisfreien Gemeinschaftsschulen außerhalb des Religionsunterrichts, in NJW 1980, 575-579. 四、網路資源 Beschluss vom 16. Mai 1995 - 1 BvR 1087/91: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/1995/05/rs19950516_1bvr108791.html.（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。 Ein pauschales Kopftuchverbot für Lehrkräfte in öffentlichen Schulen ist mit der Verfassung nicht vereinbar：https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/01/rs20150127_1bvr047110.html.（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月20日）。
描述:	碩士國立政治大學法律學系 110651067
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110651067
数据类型:	thesis
显示于类别:	[法律學系] 學位論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
106701.pdf		18074Kb	Adobe PDF2	180	检视/开启

在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回馈