%0 Others %A Liaw, Yi-Jen %E Liou, Tzong-Der %D 2019 %G zh-TW %T The Legitimacy of Administrative Law Enforcement with the Governing Food Safety and Sanitation Act – Focus on the Precautionary Withdrawal Measures %U http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/8djxjs %X 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 法學院碩士在職專班 === 107 === Modern food safety events are highly complicated in the field of law. The competent authorities have insufficient mastery of the relationship between science and the basis of life, resulting in differences on subjective and objective factual perception. Under the modern concept of risk society, all the risks of uncertainty may cause of irreversible damage at any possible time. In practice, there are government authority’s measures should be taked into consideration with the balance of personal interests and legal rights between the relative person (food industry) and the object (consumer) of the enforcement of administrative regulation and laws, as well as the uncertainty of the administrative discretion and the margin of appreciation. For administrative law, this complicated dilemma means a challenge to the legality and legitimacy of the implementation of its administrative law to the core of the interpretation of the law. The term "precautionary withdrawal" seems to be a generic term in public understanding, but there is not clearly stated by the Food Safety and Sanitation Act. However, it covers the different administrative regulation and law enforcement of the Act, which is necessary for the confirmation and characterization of its issues on laws and regulations. As the "risk precautionary principle", which is applicable to the mandatory regulation or factual behavior act of the withdrawal, whether it is a simple excecution of the law enforcement for mendatory withdrawal or the so-called precautionary dithdrawal administrative measures, in the legal effect, is that the relative person's business immediately occurrence of adversative control by the Administrative Act. As far as the legal nature is concerned, the preventive administrative act, in terms of the purpose of the legislation and the arrangement of the normative system, was distinguished into the types of "harzard prevention", "danger prevention" and "risk prevention", three kinds of preventive frames, in order to facilitate the law to standardize the objective cognition and follow up the basis of recognition. In practical application, there are different requisite elements, and so as for the future administrative remedy channels will be different. However, the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Sanitation Act provided no definition of the correct meaning of interpretation and scope of application, so the precautionary withdrawal of the law enforcement and its legitimacy can’t be enacted without doubt.