| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 法律學研究所 === 102 === This research is about the role and function of specialized courts, in contrast with those of the constitutional court, focusing on the method of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Closely related with this topic is the division of functions among the courts, determining their roles and functions, which in turn influences their methodology of interpretation, against the background of modernization and globalization.
Chapter 2 analyzes the challenge facing doctrinal analysis, or legal dogmatics, developed in the civil law tradition. Due to diversification of values and fast change of modern society, with which the lawmakers have been unable to cope, more power is delegated, with responsibility, to the judiciary. As a result, the legal dogmatics, which has been relatively mature for problems of values, still needs some advance in tools dealing with social issues concerning facts, especially the “outcome-oriented interpretation” introduced in this chapter; it serves as a platform on which the fact and the norm about the issue interacts. Through utilizing the methodology, the “transparency” of legal interpretation and process is enhanced, and the judicial power expanding into various social, economic and political affairs, a universal phenomenon known as “judicialization of politics”, is to some extent legitimized.
Chapter 3 probes into the division of power in the judicial regime with a constitutional court. Firstly introduced is a model of constitutional dialogue between the judicial and the political power, theorized by professor Stone Sweet. Secondly, the core function and purpose of constitutional court in the dialogue is depicted: the pivotal role in political-judicial dialogue and the within-judicial dialogue, in order to protect and promote human rights. Then a comparison with Korean and Italian experiences demonstrates that the dialogue relations are created through conflicts and accommodations between the powers, and that a more advanced methodology of “interpretation in conformity with the constitution” would assist in performing judicial roles and functions.
Chapter 4 further discusses the different application of “interpretation in conformity with the constitution.” The Korean and Italian experience shows that it reflects the historical and institutional contexts, and the phases of democratic progress. This research then confirms that specialized courts, with the interpretative methods as the tool for constitutional dialogue, should interpret statutes, specifically the abstract clauses in the statute, to conform with the constitution and fulfill legislative aims. And throughout this interpretation, the main focus should be clarification and argumentation concerning factual issues.
As far as the role and function of specialized courts is concerned, the concretization of abstract clauses in statutes is of fundamental importance, and chapter 5 is about its application by the administrative court, which is carried out differently from those by civil and criminal courts. After a comparative law analysis with American practice, it is suggested that abstract clauses, with the legislative goals clarified, be interpreted to specify the direction and scope of the evidential and factual support required by the reviewing court. In the process of review and interpretation, the court has to communicate with non-legal professions to check the factual and policy effects of administrative decisions, an exercise of the “outcome-oriented interpretation.”
|
|---|
