政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/32857

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/32857

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113324/144300 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51138443 線上人數 : 830

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

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/32857

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32857

題名:	從「平等的關懷與尊重」論司法裁判實踐公平正義之可能性
作者:	林芳丞
貢獻者:	陳起行林芳丞
關鍵詞:	公平正義語義階段法理階段原理階段裁判階段法理論平等整全性融貫平等關懷 justice fairness the semantic stage the jurisprudential stage the doctrinal stage the adjudicative stage legal theory equality integrity coherence equal concern
日期:	2006
上傳時間:	2009-09-17 14:35:47 (UTC+8)
摘要:	本論文之主要論旨，在於探討公平正義是否可能在裁判之過程中獲得實現。筆者主要透過德沃金的法理論以及平等理論作為討論的出發點。筆者首先對於德沃金的理論進行相關的分析與討論。德沃金的法理論主要可區分為四個部分，包括：語義階段，法理階段，原理階段，以及裁判階段。在語義階段，德沃金指出，法律的概念，必須要作為一個詮釋性概念；在法理階段，德沃金將法律的概念當成一種政治價值的概念。德沃金認為，法律的概念所表彰的政治價值，便是「合法性價值」，亦即「法治」。進一步，德沃金指出，對於「合法性價值」與「法律的概念」的最佳理解，便是「整全性」。筆者認為，「整全性」是一個連接德沃金的「法理論」以及「平等理論」的關鍵概念。在《法律帝國》一書當中，德沃金主張：裁判的整全性，要求法官適用由公平與正義原則所推導出來的法律。這樣的主張，將我們帶向德沃金的平等理論。德沃金的平等理論可以區分為兩個層面，一為討論關於分配正義的資源平等理論，另一為關乎政治權力分配的政治平等理論。這兩個概念，提供了司法裁判實踐公平正義的可能性。資源平等理論提供了相關的判準，可以使法院在裁判具體個案時得以援引，以判斷公民所擁有的具體權利，以及政府是否違反了在平等關懷下所需踐行的平等保護原則，而導致侵害人民的權利。同時，政治平等理論則為民主制度下的司法審查，提供其理論基礎。最後，德沃金指出，關於裁判如何適用法律於具體個案的裁判過程，其與上述三階段有密切的關聯性。德沃金認為，在此一階段中，他與法實證主義者最大的不同，便是在於對於法官的裁量權的理解。德沃金認為，在其法理論體系當中，法官對裁量權的行使，是一種法律義務，而非如法實證主義者所稱，是一種道德責任。不可避免的，對於德沃金的理論，存在有許多的反對意見。在此筆者援引了Joseph Raz以及Samuel Schaffler的論文，對德沃金的理論進行檢試。Raz指出，德沃金的理論本身，與其所主張的融貫並未有直接的關係，同時，德沃金的理論，忽略了權威在現代國家中所扮演的角色。Schaffler則指出，德沃金過份的強調經濟平等，因而致政治或社會平等遭到忽視。此外，Schaffler認為，德沃金的資源平等理論裡，欠缺對於境況與志向的區分標準。最後，Schaffler則是提到，德沃金的資源平等理論，隱藏著存在階級社會的可能性。的確，Joseph Raz以及Samuel Schaffler的論文提供了反思性的觀點，不過，筆者認為，他們所提出的問題，無法成功的全然拒絕德沃金的理論。筆者認為，德沃金的法理論，成功的融合了「法治」以及「正義」與「公平」，因此，其理論也確實為司法裁判實踐公平正義的理念，提供了可能了路徑。關鍵字：公平、正義、語義階段，法理階段，原理階段，裁判階段、法理論、平等、整全性、融貫、平等關懷 The main issue of my thesis focuses on whether realization of the ideal of justice and fairness in adjudication is possible. I discuss this main issue by means of Dworkin’s legal theory and his theory of equality. First of all, I start my discussion with analysis of Dworkin’s legal theory, which includes four stages: the semantic stage, the jurisprudential stage, the doctrinal stage, and the adjudicative stage. In semantic stage, Dworkin points out that the concept of law should be interpretive concept. In jurisprudential stage, he deems the concept of law as a concept of political values, and what the value presented by concept of law is the value of legality. Furthermore, he considers the best concept of the value of the legality, so as the best conception of law, is integrity. I believe this is the key concept which connects Dworkin’s legal theory with theory of equality. In Law’s Empire, Dworkin said that integrity in adjudication asks judges apply the laws which come from the principle of justice and fairness. This leads us to Dworkin’s theory of equality. Dworkin presents his theory of Equality with two dimensions. One is equality of resources, which could be narrowly seen as a theory about distributive justice. The other is political equality concerning the distribution of political power. These two dimensions of his theory of equality offer the possibility of realizing the justice and fairness in adjudication. The theory of equality of resources offers the guidelines for courts to follow when deciding if citizens have some sort of concrete rights, and if government violates the equal protection of citizen’s rights that demanded by the ideal of equal concern. According to political equality, it offers the basis of judicial review in democracy. Finally, Dworkin points out that how judges apply laws to concrete case is something related to those three stages as mentioned above. Dworkin distinguishes himself from the legal positivists, such as Hans Kelsen and H.L.A. Hart. The different between Dworkin and legal positivists is discretion power of judges. In his theory, it is judge’s legal obligation rather than moral responsibility as positivists regard. Inevitably, there are some critics to Dworkin’s theory of equality. Here I cited the research of Joseph Raz and Samuel Schaffler to exam Dworkin’s theory. Their articles offer reflective points of view to me. Joseph Raz criticizes Dworkin’s theory as something irrelative to the coherence that Dworkin himself requests. He further criticizes that Dworkin’s theory of adjudication ignores the role of authority in modern state. Samuel Scheffler criticizes that Dworkin’s theory of equality ignores the importance of political and social equality. Besides, how to distinguish circumstance and ambition is not clear enough in Dworkin’s theory. Furthermore, Scheffler considers that Dworkin’s theory of equality may allow a heirachy administration exists. Although they point out some defects, I do not think they did fulfill significant challenges to Dworkin’s theory. After all, I consider that Dworkin’s legal theories build up a perfect framework for realizing the value of legality, which can also be referred as the rule of law. Most importantly, his legal theories are coherent the other moral values and convictions of ethics. I think Dworkin’s theories of law and equality may offer the best possibility to realize the ideal of justice and fairness in adjudication. Key Words: justice, fairness, the semantic stage, the jurisprudential stage, the doctrinal stage, the adjudicative stage, integrity, coherence, legal theory, equality, equal concern
參考文獻:	參考文獻外文文獻專書 Atkinson, A. B., Dworkin, Ronald, Hirschman Albert O., Hobsbawm, E. J., Sen, Amartya, Wedderburn, Dorothy, Barker, Paul (Editor), Living As Equals, Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition, July 29, 1999. Bix, Brian, Jurisprudence: Theory and Context, Sweet & Maxell Ltd., Third edition, 2003. Burley, Justine, Dworkin and His Critics: With Replies by Dworkin, Black Well Publishing Ltd., 2004. Coleman, Jules, Shapiro, Scott, The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2002. Cohen, Marshall, Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition, October, 1984. Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, 1978. Dworkin, Ronald, A Matter of Principle, Harvard University Press, 1985. Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire, Harvard University Press, 1986. Dworkin, Ronald, Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom, Vintage; Reprint edition, June 28, 1994. Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom`s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution, Harvard University Press, 1997. Dworkin, Ronald, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality , Harvard University Press, 2000. Dworkin, Ronald, Justice in Robes, the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006. Freeman, M. D. A., Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, Sweet & Maxell Ltd., Seventh edition, 2001. Hart, H. L. A., the Concept of Law, 2nd, Oxford University Press, 1996. Hershovitz, Scott (Editor), Exploring Law`s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin, Oxford University Press, November 23, 2006. Horngern, Charles T., Datar, Srikant M., Foster, George, Cost Accounting 12th, Pearson Education International, 2006. Kymlicka, Will, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Macleod, Colin M., Liberalism, Justice, and Markets: A Critique of Liberal Equality, Oxford University Press, August 1, 1998. Parijs, Philippe Van, Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? (Oxford Politician Theory), Oxford University Press; New Ed edition, January 1, 1998. Rakowski, Eric, Equal Justice, Oxford University Press; Reprint edition, May 1, 1993. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999 Rawls, John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, in Erin Kelly (ed.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001. 期刊論文 Alexander, Larry; Schwarzschild, Maimon, “Liberalism, Neutrality, and Equality of Welfare v.s. Equality of Resources”, Philosophy and Public Affair, Vol. 16, 1987, pp. 85-110. Alexy, Robert, The Nature of Legal Philosophy, Ratio Juris, Vol..17, No.12, pp.156-167, Jun. 2004. Burgess-Jackson, Keith, Teaching Legal Theory with Venn Diagrams, Metaphilosophy, pp.159-177, Vol.29, No.3, Jul. 1998. Beyleveld, Deryck, Bromnsword, Roger, Principle, Proceduralism, and Precaution in a Community of Rights, Ratio Juris, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 141-168, Jun 2006. Bou-Habib, Paul, Serena Olsaretti, Liberal Egalitarianism and Workfare, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 257-270, Dec 2004. Political Studies Books, Political Studies, Vol. 49, Issue 1, p. 116～202, Mar 2001. Book Reviews, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 189-200, Jan 2002. Cooper, Davina, `And You Can`t Find Me Nowhere`: Relocating Identity and Structure within Equality Jurisprudence, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 249-272, Jun 2000. Cohen, G. A., “ On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice ”, Ethics, Vol. 99, 1989, pp. 906-44. Cohen, G. A., “Where the Action Is: On the Site of Distributive Justice”, Philosophy and Public Affair, Vol. 26, pp.3-30. Cohen, G. A., “Equality of What? On Welfare , Goods, and Capabilities,” in Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen (ed.) The Quality of life, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 9-29. Carens, Joseph, “Right and Duties in an Egalitarian Society”, Political Theory, Vol. 14, 1986, pp. 31-49. Clayton, Matthew, Andrew Williams, ,Egalitarian justice and interpersonal comparison, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 445-464, Jun 1999. Cotterrell, Roger, Liberalism`s Empire: Reflections on Ronald Dworkin`s Legal Philosophy, Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 12, Issue 2-3, pp. 509-524, Apr. 1987. Cronin, Ciaran, On the Possibility of a Democratic Constitutional Founding: Habermas and Michelman in Dialogue, Ratio Juris, Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 343-369, Sep. 2006. Dworkin, Ronald, Sovereign Virtue Revised, Ethics: Symposium on Ronald Dworkin’s ‘Sovereign Virtue’, Vol. 113, 2002, pp.106-43. Dworkin, Ronald, “Objectivity and Truth: You ‘d be Better Believe It”, Philosophy and Public Affair, Vol. 25, 1996, pp. 87-139. Dworkin, Ronald, “In Defense of Equality,” Social Philosophy and Policy, 1, pp. 24-40. Dworkin, Ronald, Equality, Luck and Hierarchy, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 190-198, Apr 2003. Fagelson, David, Strong Rights and Disobedience: From Here to Integrity, Ratio Juris, Vol.15, No.3, pp.242-266, Sep.2002. Gough, Stephen, Hypothetical Markets: Educational Application of Ronald Dworkin`s Sovereign Virtue, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 40, Issue 3, pp. 287-299, Aug. 2006. Hage, Jaap, Law and Coherence, Ratio Juris, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 87-105, Mar. 2004. Horton, John, In Defense of Associative Political Obligations:Part One, Political Studies, Vol.54, pp. 427-443, 2006. Hinton, Timothy, Must Egalitarians Choose Between Fairness and Respect?,Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 30, Issue 1, pp. 72-87, Jan 2001. Keating, Gregory C., Justifying Hercules: Ronald Dworkin and the rule of Law, Laws & Social Inquiry, pp.525-535, Vol. 12, Nos. 2 & 3, 1987. Koller, Peter, The Concept of Law and Its Conceptions, Ratio Juris, Vol.19, No.2, pp.180-196, Jun. 2006. Kaufman, Alexander, Choice, Responsibility and Equality, Political Studies, Vol. 52, Issue 4, pp. 819-836, Dec 2004. Lagerspetz, Eerik, Ronald Dworkin on Communities and Obligations: A Critical Comment, Ratio Juris, Vol.12, No. 1, pp. 108-115, Mar. 1999. La Torre, Massimo, Theories of Legal Argumentation and Concepts of Law. An Approximation, Ratio Juris, Vol. 15, Issue 4, pp. 377-402, Dec 2002. Levenbook, B.B., ’The Role of Coherence in Legal Reasoning’, Law and Philosophy No. 3, pp. 355-374, 1984. Mason, Andrew, Equality, Personal Responsibility, and Gender Socialisation, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback), Vol. 100, Issue 1, pp. 227-246, Dec 2000. Mason, Andrew, XI: Equality, Personal Responsibility, and Gender Socialisation, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 100, Issue 3, pp. 227-246, Sep 2000. Matravers, Matt, Responsibility, Luck, and the `Equality of What? Debate, Political Studies, Vol. 50, Issue 3, pp. 558-572, Aug. 2002. Nussbaum, Martha C., 2003 “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice,” Feminist Economics 9(2-3.), pp. 33-59. Otsuka, Michael, Equality, Ambitious and Insurance, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, Vol. 78, Issue 1, pp. 151-166, Jul 2004. Pereira, Gustavo, Means and Capabilities in the Discussion of Distributive Justice, Ratio Juris, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 55-79, Mar 2006. Phillips, Anne, Equality, pluralism, universality: current concerns in normative theory, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 237-255, Jun 2000. Pierik, Roland, Reparations for Luck Egalitarians, Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 37, Issue 3, pp. 423-440, Sep 2006. Posner, Richard A., Review Article Lawyers as Philosophers: Ackerman and Others, Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 231-249, Jan 1981. Perry, Stephen R., Libertarianism, Entitlement, and Responsibility, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 26, Issue 4, pp. 351-396, Oct 1997. Roemer, John, “A Pragmatic Theory of Responsibility for the Egalitarian Planner”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 22, 1993, pp 146-66. Robertson, John A., Autonomy`s Dominion: Dworkin on Abortion and Euthanasia, Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 457-522, Apr 1994. Rodriguez Blanco, Veronica, The Methodological Problem in Legal Theory: Normative and Descriptive Jurisprudence Revisited, Ratio Juris, Vol.19, No.1, pp.26-54, Mar. 2006. Rodriguez-Toubes Muñiz, Joaquín, Legal Principles and Legal Theory, Ratio Juris, Vol. 10, No.3, pp.267-287, Sep. 1997. Ruiz Miguel, Alfonso, Equality before the Law and Precedent, Ratio Juris, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp. 372-391, Dec. 1997. Sen, Amartya, “ Equality of What?”, in S. MaMurrin(ed.) The Tanner lectures on human values, Vol. 1, University of Utah Press, 1980. Schiavello, Aldo, On “Coherence” and “Law”：An Analysis of Different Models, Ratio Juris, Vol.14, No.2, pp.233-43, Jun. 2001. Scheffler, Samuel, What is Egalitrianism?, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp. 5-39, Jan 2003. Scheffler, Samuel, Equality as the Virtue of Sovereigns: A Reply to Ronald Dworkin, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 199-206, Apr 2003. Sheehan, Duncan, What is a Mistake? Legal Studies, pp.538-365, Vol.20, Issue 4, Nov. 2000 Solum, Lawrence B., Virtue Jurisprudence: A Virtue-Centred Theory of Judging, Metaphilosophy, pp.178-213, Vol. 34, Nos. 1/2, Jan. 2003. Sypnowich, Christine, Equality: From Marxism to Liberalism (and Back Again), Political Studies Review, Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp. 333-343, Sep 2003. Stein, Mark S., Utilitarianism and the Disabled: Distribution of Resources, Bioethics, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 1-19, Feb 2002. Tasioulas, John, Consequences of Ethical Relativism, European Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 156-171, Aug 1998. Utz, Stephen, Associative Obligation and Law’s Authority, Ratio Juris, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 285-314, Sep. 2004. Williams, Andrew, Equality for the Ambitious, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 52, Issue 208, pp. 377-389, Jul 2002. Williams, Andrew, Equality, Ambitious and Insurance, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, Vol. 78, Issue 1, pp. 131-150, Jul 2004. Wolff, Jonathan, Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 97-122, Apr 1998. Zaccaria, Giuseppe, Trends in contemporary Hermeneutics and Analytical Philosophy, Ratio Juris, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.274-285, Sep. 1999. 中文文獻專書（以姓氏筆畫排序）林立，法學方法論與德沃金，學林文化事業有限公司，初版，2000年9月。顏厥安，法與實踐理性，允晨文化實業股份有限公司，初版3刷，2003年3月。顏厥安，憲邦異式：憲政法理學論文集，元照出版有限公司，初版，2005年6月。顏厥安，規範、論證與行動：法認識論論文集，元照出版有限公司，初版，2004年12月。戴華、鄭曉時主編，正義及其相關問題，中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所，初版2刷，2002年11月。 Ronald Dworkin著，李冠宜譯，法律帝國，時英出版社，2002年9月。期刊論文（以姓氏筆畫排序）石元康，海耶克[Friedrich A. von Hayek]論自由與法治，二十一世紀，第56期，1999年12月，頁76～89。阮文泉，法律與文學—以德沃金教授的論述為中心，法律評論，第1331期，1998年9月，頁32～40。邱聰智，法律帝國[Law`s Empire by Dworkin, Ronald]掠影，中華法學，第10期，2003年12月，頁11～22。莊世同，尋找法律的亞特蘭提斯：《法律帝國》的兩種閱讀—評Ronald Dworkin著，李冠宜譯，《法律帝國》，政治與社會哲學評論，第5期，2003年6月，頁307～316。莊世同，Ronald Dworkin與柔性法實證主義，月旦法學，第64期，2000年9月，頁54～69。莊世同，論法律原則的地位：為消極的法律原則理論而辯，輔仁法學，第19期，2000年6月，頁1～66。徐振雄，德沃金[Ronald Dworkin]「權利理論」中有關「墮胎合憲性」之論證及其限制，萬能學報，第24期，2002年8月，頁217～230。陳方正，自由主義在新世紀所面臨的挑戰，二十一世紀，第68期，2001年12月，頁4～14。陳起行，Dworkin法理學、融貫與法資訊系統，政大法學評論，第65期，2001年3月，頁1～85。陳愛娥，評林立著《法學方法論與德沃金》，台灣本土法學雜誌，第15期，2000年10月，頁245～246。錢永祥，道德平等與待遇平等：試探平等概念的二元結構，政治與社會哲學評論，第6期，2003年9月，頁195～229。戴華，道德權利與道德錯誤，歐美研究，第22卷，第1期，1992年3月，頁1～42。謝世民，論德我肯的資源平等觀，人文及社會科學集刊，第11卷，第1期，1989年3月，頁123～153。謝世民，政治權力、政治權威與政治義務，政治與社會哲學評論，第1期，2002年6月，頁1～41。顏厥安，規則、理性與法治，國立台灣大學法學論叢，第31卷，第2期，2002年3月，頁1～58。學位論文碩士論文（以姓氏筆畫排序）李冠宜，裁量、詮釋與論證─司法裁判客觀性之研究，國立台灣大學法律學研究所，88年度碩士論文。李忠謙，法學融貫論之研究-以德沃金的整全法為中心，國立台灣大學法律學研究所，94年度碩士論文。阮文泉，德沃金法律建構解釋理論之研究，國立台灣大學法律學研究所，81年度碩士論文。林世超，德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）法律詮釋理論之研究，佛光人文社會學院，哲學系碩士班，94年度碩士論文。洪絹閔，胎兒與懷孕女性生命內在價值的權衡－德沃金與康奈爾的同與異，國立政治大學法律學研究所，94年度碩士論文。許家馨，法與道德─德沃京對法實證主義分離命題之批判，國立政治大學政治學研究所，88年度碩士論文。廖正睦，德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）自由主義式平等理論之研究，國立政治大學政治學研究所，86年度碩士論文。盧佩玲，分配平等的兩種觀點：德沃金論資源與沈恩論能力，國立清華大學哲學研究所，94年度碩士論文。
描述:	碩士國立政治大學法律學研究所 92651042 95
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0926510421
資料類型:	thesis
顯示於類別:	[法律學系] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
51042101.pdf		43Kb	Adobe PDF2	935	檢視/開啟
51042102.pdf		106Kb	Adobe PDF2	1219	檢視/開啟
51042103.pdf		74Kb	Adobe PDF2	1143	檢視/開啟
51042104.pdf		14Kb	Adobe PDF2	1154	檢視/開啟
51042105.pdf		75Kb	Adobe PDF2	989	檢視/開啟
51042106.pdf		148Kb	Adobe PDF2	1490	檢視/開啟
51042107.pdf		317Kb	Adobe PDF2	4504	檢視/開啟
51042108.pdf		234Kb	Adobe PDF2	4769	檢視/開啟
51042109.pdf		270Kb	Adobe PDF2	1184	檢視/開啟
51042110.pdf		117Kb	Adobe PDF2	1317	檢視/開啟
51042111.pdf		153Kb	Adobe PDF2	12841	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

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 © - 回饋