English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51571867      Online Users : 885
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153774


    Title: 主要問題原則與美國管制國家之法理基礎──歷史背景、近期發展及可能啟示
    Major Questions Doctrine and the Legal Foundation for the United States Regulatory State: Historical Background, Recent Developments, and Potential Lessons
    Authors: 梁志鳴
    Liang, Chih-Ming
    Contributors: 政大法學評論
    Keywords: 管制;治理;管制國家;主要問題原則;禁止授權原則;雪弗龍順從原則;階層式法律保留原則;授權明確性原則;功能最適理論;審議民主理論
    Regulation;Governance;Regulatory State;Major Questions Doctrine;Non-Delegation Doctrine;Chevron Deference;Principle of Hierarchical Legal Reservation;Principle of Clarity of Legal Authorization;Most Functionally Suitable Theory;Deliberative Democracy
    Date: 2024-06
    Issue Date: 2024-09-12 14:27:38 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文將美國最高法院近年對主要問題原則的討論，放在管制國家法理基礎的歷史發展脈絡上，將其理解為保守派大法官對管制國家法理基礎的攻擊，試圖藉此節制美國聯邦政府管制權責的持續擴張。自由與保守派大法官圍繞此論辯展現的不同立場，背後除反映其對尊重專業或捍衛民主的價值取捨，也反映其對行政權力正當性來源──尤其是國會授權和管制專業──的不同想像。本文認為上述論辯的根源來自於管制國家與法治主義的內在衝突，為思考我國脈絡應如何因應此衝突，本文肆、比較我國和美國處理此衝突的不同經驗，進而提出進一步階層化我國授權明確性原則的倡議，亦即區分最寬鬆（無須法律保留）、中等程度（允許整體關聯脈絡之條文解釋）及較嚴格（需要法律文字之直接、明確、清楚授權）等三層次審查密度，並以基本權如何在特定管制脈絡獲得實現或遭到侵害，作為應適用何種密度之判斷標準。
    This paper places recent discussions by the US Supreme Court on the major questions doctrine within the historical context of the development of the legal foundation for the federal regulatory state. It interprets recent developments as conservative attacks on this legal foundation, aimed at curbing the ongoing expansion of federal government regulatory authority. The differing positions taken by liberal and conservative judges in this debate reflect not only their priorities—valuing expertise or defending democracy—but also reveal their different imaginations of the sources of legitimacy for executive authority, such as congressional authorization and regulatory expertise.
    This article argues that this everlasting debate originates from the inherent conflict between the regulatory state and the rule of law. To consider how our country should respond to this conflict, Part IV examines how Taiwan and the United States handle this issue differently. It proposes further stratifying the principle of clarity of legal authorization by distinguishing among three standards of review: the loose (requiring no legal reservation), the moderate (allowing interpretation of provisions within a broader context), and the strict (demanding direct, explicit, and clear legal authorization). More importantly, the determination of which level should apply in particular cases should be based on how fundamental rights are realized or infringed upon within specific regulatory contexts.
    Relation: 政大法學評論, 177, 275-344
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202024060177004
    DOI: 10.53106/102398202024060177004
    Appears in Collections:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    177-4.pdf2833KbAdobe PDF49View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    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 ©   - Feedback