(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/08 14:17
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:林春元
研究生(外文):Chun-Yuan Lin
論文名稱:全球化下的法院--從司法空間轉型的角度分析之
論文名稱(外文):TThe Courts in the Global Era--The Transformation of Judicial Space
指導教授:葉俊榮葉俊榮引用關係
指導教授(外文):Jiunn-rong Yeh
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:法律學研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:一般法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:224
中文關鍵詞:法院跨國訴訟空間司法積極政治司法化全球化法律多元主義社會權司法權跨國司法主義
外文關鍵詞:JudicialTransnational JudicialismSocial RightsTransnational litigationsLegal PluralismJudicial ActivismCourtsJudicialization of PoliticsSpaceGlobalization
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:12
  • 點閱點閱:635
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
席捲各地的全球化的浪潮帶來社會、經濟、環境各面向,而華航空難事件、阿馬斯號漏油事件以及吳憶樺監護權的爭議等等「不傳統」的司法新聞的大量出現,也讓我們意識到今日的司法權已經有別於以往了。然而,全球化是如何影響法院的?司法權在全球化衝擊下又產生了哪些變動?這些變動的意涵為何,是為人們帶來新的希望,還是壓迫和宰制的另一種形式?
本文從「空間」的角度切入上述問題的分析及回答,嘗試以空間的概念重新理解司法權在現代國家法律制度中的意義、全球化的概念以及二者的關聯性。本文認為,民族國家以「領土」以及「公私領域」兩個空間展開現代法律制度的建置。司法權建構在此兩個空間之上,既以領土最為其權力行使的基礎及界線,也產生了權力分立以及公私區分的空間界定。這些空間意涵一方面限定了司法權行使的界線,卻也同時指出了司法權在法律體系中的定位、運作原則及正當性基礎。但是正由於這些空間意涵是被建構的,故當全球化的力量帶動空間的解構及重新建構,藉由促動領土主權的轉型及公私區分的模糊,司法權既有的空間結構也一併受到衝擊。在全球化的衝擊下,司法權產生了幾個重要的改變。其一是司法權在制度設計上及法院態度上的相對擴張。其二、領土管轄權也有相對化的趨勢。跨國公、私法訴訟越來越常見,管轄權的概念也漸漸鬆脫領土的限制,開始以「社群」作為界定之基準。其三、法院作為決定依據的規範結構也不再獨鐘形式的國家法,法律多元主義和法律匯整的趨勢同時展開。其四、各國的法院之間開始產生頻繁而微妙的跨國互動,不但開始出現多元多向的司法對話,也開始相互連結成跨國的司法社群。新的全球化司法結構使得法院的定位、運作原則以及正當性基礎也有所不同,其結果是開啟了全球社會的權力結構滲透及操弄的可能性。不但造成跨國司法社群間的階層及中心/邊陲關係,也容易繼續加深社會中既存的優劣勢差異。

Globalization has influenced our society. Judiciary as a mechenism of our structure was transformed by the force of globalization through the way of deconstructing and reproduced judicial spatial structure. The founctions'' oprating principles and the ligitimacy of courts have been changed nowaday. The imbalance of global social stucture was filtered and copied into the judicial space more easily through the new spatial structure. The disadvantages stand in even worse position.

詳 目
1. 序言 1
1.1. 問題意識 1
1.2. 研究範圍及方法 5
1.2.1. 研究範圍 5
1.2.2. 研究方法 7
1.3. 本文架構及主要論點 8

2. 司法、空間與全球化 11
2.1. 理解司法空間 12
2.1.1. 空間的理解 12
2.1.2. 理解司法空間意涵的途徑—原始的社群模式 14
2.2. 現代司法權的空間分析 16
2.2.1. 國家法律的空間建構 17
2.2.1.1. 領土的排他性 18
2.2.1.2. 公私區分 20
2.2.2. 司法的空間分析 24
2.2.2.1. 國家領土作為司法權的基礎及界限 25
2.2.2.1.1. 領土管轄權 25
2.2.2.1.2. 以「國家法律」而治 28
2.2.2.1.3. 判決效力的範圍 30
2.2.2.2. 權力分立的司法管轄權 30
2.2.2.3. 公私區分與國家行為原則 34
2.3. 全球化與空間 37
2.3.1. 全球化?什麼全球化? 37
2.3.2. 全球化現象及時點 41
2.3.3. 全球化的三個空間特性 43
2.3.3.1. 移動性 44
2.3.3.2. 跨國性 45
2.3.3.3. 互賴性 46
2.4. 全球化對法律空間的衝擊 48
2.4.1. 領土主權的轉型—領土的去國家化與主權的去中心化 48
2.4.2. 公私區分的模糊 51
2.5. 小結 53

3. 全球化下司法空間的結構轉型 55
3.1. 司法權的擴張 55
3.1.1. 司法權擴張與全球化 57
3.1.2. 結構上的擴權 59
3.1.2.1. 法院的增設 60
3.1.2.2. 憲法及條約的賦權 64
3.1.2.2.1. 基本權利及權力分立的成文化 65
3.1.2.2.2. 訴訟適格與審查權限的擴大 67
3.1.2.3. 相對獨立的司法 69
3.1.3. 政治司法化與司法積極 72
3.1.3.1. 案件數量及違憲宣告比例的增加 73
3.1.3.2. 政治問題不審查原則之退卻 77
3.1.3.3. 國家行為原則之模糊 82
3.2. 領土主權的相對化 84
3.2.1. 跨國訴訟的增加 84
3.2.1.1. 私法訴訟 84
3.2.1.2. 跨國公法訴訟 90
3.2.2. 演化中的管轄權概念 96
3.2.2.1. 從領土到社群的管轄權 96
3.2.2.2. 從單一到多元的管轄權 102
3.2.2.2.1. 領土之外的新管轄權 102
3.2.2.2.2. 網際網路與多樣社群 103
3.2.2.2.3. 普世人權與全球社群 105
3.3. 法律匯整與多元 107
3.3.1. 法律匯整 109
3.3.1.1. 跨國法的出現 110
3.3.1.2. 國家間法律的趨同 112
3.3.1.3. 國際規範的法治化 115
3.3.2. 法律多元主義 119
3.3.2.1. 同一管轄權的法律多元 120
3.3.2.2. 空間重組的結果 123
3.4. 跨國司法主義的興起 125
3.4.1. 法院間的對話 125
3.4.1.1. 從單向到網路的借鏡 127
3.4.1.1.1. 法律經驗之學習 127
3.4.1.1.2. 判決正當性之強化 129
3.4.1.2. 從接收到對話及轉化—本土化的協調 132
3.4.2. 司法社群的跨國連結 135
3.4.2.1. 國際社群的自覺 136
3.4.2.2. 司法互助與協商 138
3.4.2.2.1. 資訊提供 138
3.4.2.2.2. 司法引渡 139
3.4.2.2.3. 分工合作 140
3.4.2.3. 司法禮讓 141
3.4.2.4. 司法專業規則及相互評判 143
3.4.3. 侷限而不均的跨國司法社群 145
3.5. 小結:回到未來或嶄新的局面? 147

4. 全球化下的法院與差異激化 153
4.1. 法院定位、運作原則及正當性基礎的變遷 154
4.1.1. 法院定位的轉型 154
4.1.1.1. 市場化 155
4.1.1.2. 工具化 156
4.1.1.3. 政治化 158
4.1.1.3.1. 從依法審判到實質決策 158
4.1.1.3.2. 從規範適用到規範競爭與形成 160
4.1.2. 法院運作原則的變遷 161
4.1.2.1. 政治敏感度 162
4.1.2.2. 從不告不理到供需關係 165
4.1.2.3. 策略性的法治主義 166
4.1.3. 法院正當性基礎的變遷 168
4.1.3.1. 傳統正當性基礎的不足 168
4.1.3.2. 從形式法治主義到社群成員的遵從 170
4.1.3.2.1. 說服的權威 171
4.1.3.2.2. 利益的滿足及衝突的暫時化解 172
4.1.3.2.3. 跨國司法社群專業規則 173
4.2. 司法空間全球化與優劣勢差異的激化 175
4.2.1. 全球化的司法結構與差異的激化 177
4.2.1.1. 全球權力結構 178
4.2.1.2. 跨國司法網路的中心與邊陲 179
4.2.1.3. 司法結構與優勢與劣勢的激化 185
4.2.1.3.1. 當事人、訴訟頻率與流動性 186
4.2.1.3.2. 律師及法院專業特性的美國化 188
4.2.1.3.3. 專業規則的建立 191
4.2.2. 基本權利的不均發展 193
4.2.2.1. 全球化結構中的「社會權」 194
4.2.2.2. 社會權與其他消極權發展的不均 197
4.2.2.2.1. 量的分析 197
4.2.2.2.2. 判決內容的探究 198
4.3. 小結 202

5. 結論 205

參考書目 211
一、中文部分 211
二、英文部分 214
(一)英文專書 214
(二)英文期刊 217



參考書目
一、中文部分
王志弘等譯,2004,《第三空間》,台北:桂冠。(Soja, Edward W., Thirdspace-Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places)
王家煌譯,2000,《現代社會的法律:社會理論的批判》,台北:商周。(Roberto M. Unger, Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory)
朱柔若,〈憲政主義的全球化與公民權的重建:台灣經驗解析〉,憲政時代第二十八卷二期(2002),頁6。
汪仲譯,1997,《無疆界的市場》,台北:時報文化。(Bryan, Lowell & Farrell, Diana)
李建良,1999,〈論司法審查的政治界限〉,收於:氏著《憲法理論與實踐(一) 》,台北:學林。
李鴻禧,1997,〈司法審查的政策行程功能底緒說〉,收錄於氏著《憲法與議會》,台北:植根,頁429-432。
房思宏,2001,《關於全球化論述之知識對話》,台大政治研究所碩士論文。
法治斌,1993再版,〈私人關係與憲法保障〉,收錄於氏著《人權保障與釋憲法制(一)憲法專論》,台北:自版。
吳志光,2002,〈違憲審查制度與司法一元化—兼論比較法上的觀察〉,「第一屆憲法實務與理論學術研討會」頁53 (2002/10/19)。
吳鴻昌,2002,從公共領域的危機到大眾社會的浮現—一個「人民主權」的觀察史考察,台大社會學研究所碩士論文
林子儀,〈違憲審查之界線與政治問題理論—從美國政治問題理論檢討大法官有關「政治問題」之解釋〉,論文發表於《憲法解釋之理論與實務學術研討會》,中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所主辦,1997年3月23日。
林子儀等編著,2003,《憲法—權利分立》,台北:學林。
韋本、李尚遠譯,2002,《帝國》,台北:商周。(Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, EMPIRE, 2001)
高仁君譯,2002,「完美大未來—全球化機遇與挑戰」,台北:商周。
徐季耘譯,1999〈歐洲的民族國家與全球化的壓力〉,台灣社會研究三十四期,頁116-117。(Habermas, Jurgen)
徐百齊譯,2000,《社約論》,台北:商務。(Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 「DU CONTRAT SOCIAL」)
翁岳生,《法治國家之行政法與司法》,台北:月旦(1994), 頁331-336。
夏鑄九、黃麗玲等譯,「認同的力量」,頁267,台北:唐山出版社(2002)。(Manuel Castells)
孫治本,2003,〈跨國公民社會與歐洲聯盟的整合問題〉,收錄於:黃瑞琪編,《現代性、後現代性與全球化》,台北:左岸。.
孫治本,全球化的概念:全球地方化、民族認同與文明衝突,思與言,三十八卷一期,頁147-184(2003/3)。
孫智綺譯,2002,《防火牆—抵擋新自由主義的入侵》,台北:麥田(Pierre Bourdieu).
許宗力,〈大法官釋憲權行使的程序及範圍—從大法官審理案件法語修正草案之檢視談起〉,收於:許宗力,《憲法與法治國行政》,台北:元照,頁87-130。
許宗力,〈憲法與政治〉,收於:許宗力,《憲法與法治國行政》,台北:元照,頁1-52。
許慶雄、李明峻著,1993,《現代國際法入門》,台北:月旦。
陳勁,〈論整合理論的趨勢及主權問題之迷思:以歐盟為例〉,成大學報32卷(1997),頁228-229。.
蔡敦銘,1993,《刑法總論》,台北:三民。
黃競涓,2002,〈性別、公民與公私區分〉,http://diplomacy.nccu.edu.tw/~cpsa/article_20020420_002.htm (4/26/03)。
駱永家,1997,民事訴訟法I,台北:三民
國民大會秘書處編,1996,《新編世界憲法大全》,台北。
葉俊榮,2001,〈從「轉型法院」到「常態法院」:論大法官釋字第二六一號與第四九九號的解釋風格與轉型脈絡〉,台大法學論叢第三十一卷二期,頁82。
葉俊榮,2002,〈超越轉型—台灣的憲法變遷〉,收錄於:李鴻禧等著,《台灣憲法之縱剖橫切》,台北:元照,頁97。
葉俊榮、張文貞,2002,〈轉型法院與法治主義:論最高法院對違法行政命令審查的積極趨勢〉,人文及社會科學集刊第十四卷第四期,頁538。
葉俊榮,2003,《民主轉型與憲法變遷》,台北:元照。
張文貞, 2002,〈面對全球化:台灣行政法發展的契機與挑戰〉,收於:翁岳生教授祝壽論文集編輯委員會,《當代公法新論(中):翁岳生教授七秩誕辰論文集》,台北:元照。
張君玫譯,2001,《全球化—對人類的深遠影響》,台北:群學。(Zygmunt Bauman, Globalization—The Human Consequence )
張福森,「應對加入WTO挑戰切實加強法治建設」,2002/5/13,新華網big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/zhengfu/2002-05/13/content_38985 (2004/5/18 last visited)。
黃越欽,2003,〈國際勞工公約與憲法法院—兼論大法官釋字第三七三號解釋〉,憲政時代第二十八卷三期,頁15。
黃昭元,2001,〈走鋼索的大法官—解讀釋字第五二零號解釋〉,台灣本土法學雜誌,二十期,頁66-79>
黃昭元,2002,〈抗多數困境與司法審查正當性—評Bickel教授的司法審查理論〉,收錄於:李鴻禧等著,《台灣憲法的縱剖橫切》,出版,台北:元照,頁301-42。
黃昭元,2002,〈司法消極美德的積極實踐—評Sunstein教授的「司法最小主義」〉,收於:翁岳生教授祝壽論文集編輯委員會,《當代公法新論(上)--翁岳生教授七秩祝壽論文集》,台北:元照,頁875-917。
黃琛瑜,1999,《歐洲聯盟—跨世紀政治工程》,台北:五南。
章鴻康,1991,《歐洲共同體法概論》,台北:遠流。
廖福特,2000,〈歐洲人權法院—歷史、組織、職權及程序〉,思與言第三十八卷第四期,頁68。
劉軍寧譯,1996,《第三波-二十世紀末的民主化浪潮》,初版二刷。(Samuel P. Huntington, THE THIRD WAVE: DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE LAST TWENTIETH CENTURY, 1991)。
二、英文部分
(一)英文專書
Ackerman, Bruce, 1993, WE THE PEOPLE: FOUNDATIONS, United States: Harvard University Press.
Alexander, Larry & Horton, Paul, 1988, WHOM DOES THE CONSTITUTION COMMAND?: A Conceptual Analysis with Practical Implications (Contributions in Legal Studies), Greenwood Publishing Group。
Arnull, Anthony, 1999, THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS COURT OF JUSTICe, New York: Oxford University Press.
Barak, Aharon, 1994, JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, Jersalem: Nevo.
Bartelson, Jens, 1988, A GENEALOGY OF SOVEREIGNTY, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bickel, Alexander, 1962, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH, New Haven: Yale University Press
Brown, L. Neville and Kennedy, Tom, 2000, THE COURTS OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIEs, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Cable, Vincent, 1999, GLOBALIZATION AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, New York: Royal Institute of International Affairs。
Cohen, Benjamin, 1998, THE GEOGRAPHY OF MONEY, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Cohen, Robin and Kennedy, Paul, 2000, GLOBAL SOCIOLOGY, New York:Palgrave。
Dworkin, Ronald, 1996, FREEDOM’S LAW, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
ELY, JOHN HART, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST: A THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (1980).
Franck, Thomas M. & Fox, Gregory H. eds, 1996, INTERNATIONAL LAW DECISIONS IN NATIONAL COURTS, Transnational Publisher, Inc.
Fukuyama, Francis, 1992, The End of History and the Last Man, New York: Aron. Germain, Randell D.
Giddens, Anthony, 1985, A CONTEMPORARY CRITIQUE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, VOL. II: THE NATION-STATES AND VIOLENCE, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, Anthony , 1990, THE CONSEQUENCE OF MODERNITY, Cambridge: Polity
Guarnieri, Carlo et al., 2002, THE POWER OF JUDGES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF COURT AND DEMOCRACY, New York: Oxford University.
Guehenno, Jean-Marie, 1993, Victoria Elliott trans., THE END OF THE NATION-STATE, Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.
Harvey, David ., 1989, THE CONDITION OF POSTMODERNITY : AN ENQUIRY INTO THE ORIGINS OF CULTURAL CHANGE, Oxford, New York :Blackwell.
Herman Schwartz, 2000, THE STRUGLE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE IN POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hirschl, Ran, 2004, TOWARD JURISTOCRACY: THE ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW CONSITUTIONALISM, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hooks, bell, 1990, YEARNING, Boston: South End Press.
Kenney, Sally J. el eds., 1999, CONSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUES IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE,New York : St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Lash, S & Robertson, R., 1995, GLOBAL MODERNITIES, London.
MacCormick, Neil, 1999, QUESTIONING SOVEREIGNTY, New York: Oxford University Press(()。
McBride, Stephen, and Wiseman, John, eds., , 2000, GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS, New York : St. Martin''s Press.
Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, 2001, EMPIRE, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Micklethwait, John and Wooldridge, Adrian, 2003, A FUTURE PERFECT: THE CHALLENGE AND PROMISE OF GLOBALIZATION, Random House Trade.
Mittleman, James H. ed., 1997, GLOBALIZATION: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS, Colorado :Lynne Rienner Publisher.
Peretti, Terri Jennings, 1999, IN DEFENCE OF A POLITICAL COURT, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rawls, John, 1971, 1999, THE THEORY OF JUSTICE, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John, 1999, THE LAW OF PEOPLES, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John, 2001, JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: A RESTATEMENT, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sajo, Andras, 1999, LIMITING GOVERNMENT : AN INTRODUCTION TO CONSTITUTIONALISM, Budapest: Central European University().
Saskia Sassen, 1995, LOSING CONTROL? SOVEREIGNTY IN AN AGE OF GLOBALIZATION, New York: Columbia University Press.
Shapiro, Matin & Stone Sweet, Alec eds., 2002, ON LAW, POLITICS & JUDICIALIZATION, New York: Oxford University Press.
Shue, Henry, 1980, Basic Rights:Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy, Princeton, N.J:Princeton University Press.
Spruyt, Hendrik, 1996, THE SOVEREIGN STATE AND ITS COMPETITORS, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph E, 2002, GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS, New York : WW Norton & Company.
Stone Sweet, Alec, 2000, GOVERNING WITH JUDGES: CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS IN EUROPE, Oxford University Press
Sunstein, Cass R., 1999, ONE CASE AT A TIME, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Twining, William, 2000, GLOBALIZATION AND LEGAL THEORY, Illinois: Northwest University Press.
Tomuschat, Christian, 1987, JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES: INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM, Max-Planck Institute.
Virilio, Paul, 1991, THE LOST DIMENSION, New York: Semiotext.
(二)英文期刊
Ackerman, Bruce, 1997, The Rise of World Constitutionalism, 83 Va. L. Rev. 771.
Ahn, Kyong Whan, 1998, The Influence of American Constitutionalism on South .Korea, 27 Southern Illionis L.J. 71
Albrow, M., 1990, Globalization, Knowledge And Society: An Introduction, in GLOBALIZATION, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY,(Albrow, M. and King,E. eds., London ; Newbury Park : Sage Publications,
Aman, Alfred C., 1998, The Globalizing State: A Future-Oriented Perspective on the Public/Private Distinction, Federalism, and Dem ocracy, 31 VAND. J. TRANSNAT''L L. 769.
Anastaplo,George, 2002, Bush v. Gore and a Seperation of Powers, 34 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 131.
Anderson, Michael, Transnational Corporations and Environmental Damage: Is Tort Law the Answer?, http://washburnlaw.edu/wlj/41-3/articles/ande.pdf. (2004/1/14)
Bahdi, Reem, 2002, Globalization of Judgements: Transjudicialism and The Five Faces of International Law in Domestic Courts, 34 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 555.
Ballard, Megan J., 1999, The Clash Between Local Courts and Global Economics: The Politics of Judicial Reform in Brazil, 17 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 230.
Barton, Emily Johnson, 2002, Pricing Judicial Independence: An Empirical Study of Post-1997 Court of Final Appeal Decisions in Hong Kong, 43 Harvard Int’l Rev. 361
Becker, Wendy M., et al., 2001, Lawyers get down to business, THE MCKINSEY QUARTERLY 45.
Berman, Paul Schiff, 2002, The Globalization Of Jurisdiction, 151 U.Pa.L. Rev.311.
Boyers, James M, 1998, Globalization and the United States Constitution: How Much Can It Accommodate?, 5 Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud. 583.
Breyer, Stephen, 2000, Constitutionalism , Privatization, and Globalization : Hanging relationships among European Constitutional Courts, Cardozo L.Rev.1045.
Cass Sunstein, 1991, Constitutionalism and Secession, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 633, at 634-636,.
Cassel Jr,Douglass W, (2000/6/8), Latin America: Democracy in jeopardy, again, as Peru votes, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,
Dubé, L’Heureux, 1998, The Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of Rehnquist Court, 34 Tulsa L. J. 15.
Edelman, Lauren B.& Suchman, Mark C., 1999, When the “haves” hold the Couert: Speculations on the organizational internalization of law, 33 Law & Soc. Rev. 941
Edgardo Rotman, 2000, The Globalization of Criminal Violence, 10 Cornell J.L.& Pub. Pol’y
Fiss, Owen, 1985, Conventionalism, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev.177
Ford, Richard Thompson, 1996, Beyond Borders: A Partial Response to Richard Briffault,vol.48 Stan L.Rev.
Frank I. Michelman, 2000, Constitutionalism, Privatization, And Globalization: Whither The Constitution?, 21 Cardozo L. Rev. 1063 .
Franck, Thomas, 1995, The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance, Am. J. Int’l L, 46-91
Friedman, Lawrence, 1996, Borders: On the Emerging Sociology of Transnational Law, 32 Stan. J. Int’l L. 65.
Jacobson, David & Ruffer, Galya Benarieh, 2003, Courts Across Borders: The Implications of Judicail Agency for Human Rights and Democracy, 25 Human Rights Quarterly 74.
James, H. Mittleman, 1997, The Dynamics of Globalization, in GLOBALIZATION: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS (James H. Mittleman ed.), Colorado :Lynne Rienner Publisher.
Krisch ,Daniel J., 1999, Vogt V. Germany: The European Court Of Human Rights Expands The Scope Of Articles 10 And 11 Of The European Convention On Human Rights To Include The Political Activities Of Civil Servants, 14 Conn. J. Int’l L. 237.
Galanter, Marc, 1974, Why The “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations On The Limits Of Legal Change, 9 L. & Soc’y Rev. 95.
Geist, Michael A., 2001, Is There a There? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction, 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1345.
Ginsburg, Tom, Confucian Constitutionalism? The Emergence of Constitutional Review in Korea and Taiwan, 27 Law & Soc. Inquiry 763.
Ginsburgh, Tom & Ganzorig, Gombosuren, 2001, When Courts and Politics Collide: Mongolia''s Constitutional Crisis, 14 Colum. J. Asian L. 309
Gladstone, Julia Alpert, 2003, Determining Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: The “Zippo” Test Or The “ Effects” Test?,143 Informing Science, 144.
Hirschl, Ran, 2002, Restituating the Judicialization of Politics: Bush v. Gore as a global Trend, 15 Can. J.L. & Juris. 191
Horatia Muir Watt, Choice of Law in Integrated and Interconnected Markets: A Matter of Political Economy, 9 Colum. J. Eur. L. 383(2003), at 401
John B. Attanasio, 1996, Rapporteur''s Overview and Conclusions: of Sovereignty, Globalization, and Courts, in INTERNATIONAL LAW DECISIONS IN NATIONAL COURTS (Thomas M. Franck & Gregory H. Fox eds.),. Transnational Publisher, Inc.
Kaplan, Carl S., 2001, Expert See Online Speech Cases as Bellwether, N.Y.Times, Jan. 5, at http://www.nytimes.com//2001/01/05/technology/05CYBERLAW.
Kay, Richard S., The State Action Doctrine, The Public-Private Distinction, And The Independence Of Constitutional Law, 10 Const Comm. 329 (1993), 342-346。
Kelemen, R. Danial & Sibbit, Eric C., 2002, The Americanization of Japanese Law, 23 U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L. 269
Koh, Harold Hongju, 1991, Transnational Public Law Litigation, 100 Yale L.J. 2348
Left, Rebecca, 2001, Comparason Of Comparison: Use Of Foreign Case Law As Persuasive Authority By The United States Supreme Court, The Supreme Court Of Canada, And The High Court Of Australia, 21 S. Cal. Interdis. L. J. 165
Levinson, Jared, 2001, Indonesia’s Odyssey: A Nation’s Long, Perilous Journey to The Rule of Law and Democracy, 18 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. Law 103.
Los, Maria, 1995, Lustration and Truth Claims: Unifinished Revolutions in Central Europe, Law and Social Inquiry,117-161
Luu Tien Dung, 2003, Judicial Independence in Transitional Countries, at 13, United Nations Developments Program, http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docsjuly03/DungTienLuu-v2.pdf, (2004/1/13)
Mark, Steven, 2001, Harmonization or Homogenization? The Globalization of Law and Legal Ethics—An Australian Viewpoint, 34 Vand. J. Transnatl. L. 1173.
Martin Krygier, 2001, Transitional Questions about Rule of Law 28 ECE, pp.1-34.
Messick, Richard E., 1999, Judicial Reform and Economic Development: A Survey of the Issue, 14 The World Bank Research Observe.
Meyer, William H. & Stefanova,Boyka, 2001, Human Rights the UN Global Compact, and Global Governance, 34 Cornell Int’l L. J.501.
Miller, David, 1999, Justice and Global Inequality, in INEQUALITY, GLOBALIZATION, AND WORLD POLITICS(A. Hurrell & N. Woods, eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neuman, Gerald L., 2003, Human Rights and Constitutional Rights: Harmony and Dissonance, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1863。
O’Connor, Sandra Day, 1996, Federalism of Free Nations, in INTERNATIONAL LAW DECISIONS IN NATIONAL COURTS (Thomas M. Franck & Gregory H. Fox eds.), Transnational Publisher, Inc.
Perez, Antonio F., 2001, The International Recognition Of Judgments: The Debate Between Private And Public Law Solutions, 19 berkeley J. int’l L.44.
Picciotto, Sol, 1996, The Regulatory Criss-cross: Interaction Between Jurisdiction and the Construction of Global Regulatory Network, in INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY COMPETITION AND COORDINATION: PERPECTIVE ON ECONOMIC REGULATION IN EUROPE AND UNITED STATES 89, 99-100.( bratton, William, et al. eds.)
Polakiewicz, Jorg, & Jacob-Foltzer, Valerie, 1991, The European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: The Impact of Strasbourg Case-Law in States Where Direct Effect Is Given to the Convention, 12 Human Rights L.J. 65.
Reich, Arie, 1997, Symposium: Institutions For International Economic Integration: From Diplomacy To Law: The Judicialization Of International Trade Relations, 17 NW. J. int’l L. & Bus. 775.
Robert, W. Cox, 1997, A Perspective on Globalization, in GLOBALIZATION: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS (Mittleman, James H. ed.), Colorado :Lynne Rienner Publisher.
Romano, Cesare P.R., 1999, The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle, 31 N.Y.U. Int’l L & Pol. 709, 744().
Rupnik, Jacques, 2002, The Politics of Coming to Term with the Communist Past, www.iwm.at/t-22txt4.htm (2004428)
Shapiro, Martin, 2002, Globalization of Freedom of Contract, in ON LAW, POLITICS & JUDICIALIZATION( Shapiro, Matin & Stone Sweet, Alec eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Schauer, Frederick, 2000, The Politics and incentives of Legal Transplantation, in GOVERNANCE IN A GLOBAL WORLD 253, 258-59(Joseph S. Nye & John D. Donahue eds.,)
Schiek, Dagmar, 1998, Sex Equality Law After Kalanke and Marschall, 4 Eur. L. J. 148
Singh, M.P., 2002, Securing the Independence of Judiciary—The Indian Experience, 10 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 245.
Slaughter, Ann-Mari,e 1994, A Typology of Transjudicial Communication, 29 U. Rich L. Rev. 99, 137.
Slaughter, Ann-Marie, 2000, Judicial Globalization, 40 Va. J. Int''l L. 1103.
Sl aughter, Ann-Marie, 2003, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int’l L. 191.
Steglich, Elissa, 1999-2000, Hiding in the Hull, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1323.
Stone Sweet, Alec and Brunell, Thomas, 1998, Constructing a Supranational Constitution: Dispute Resolution and Governance in the European Community, 92 Am. Pol. Science Rev. 63-81.
Stone Sweet, Alec, 2002, Judicialization and the Construction of Governance, in ON LAW, POLITICS, & JUDICIALIZATION 55-89( Martin Shapiro & Alec Stone Sweet eds.,), New York: Oxford University Press,
Storey ,Hugo, 1998, Implications of Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights in the Immigration and Asylum Context, 4 Eur. Hu,. Rts. L. Rev. 452.
Sunkin, Maurice, 1995, The United Kindom, in THE GLOBALO EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL POWER 67-78 (C. Neal Tate & Torbjoern Vallinder eds.) New York: New York University Press,.
Trenor, John A., Jurisdiction And The Extraterritorial Application Of Antitrust Laws After Hartford Fire, 62 U.Chi. L Rev. 1583 (1995),1585-1589.
Treves, Tullio, 1996, Conflicts Between the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 809.
Tushnet, Mark, 1999, The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law, 108 Yale L. J. 1225.
Uwanno, Borwornsak & Burns Wayne D., 1998, The Thai Constitution of 1997: Sources and Process, 32 U.B.C. L. Rev. 227.
Valetk, Harry Note, 1999, “ I Cannot Eat Air!”: An Economic Analysis of International Immigration Law for the 21st Century, 7 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 141.
Vallinder, Torbjörn, 1995, When The Courts Go Marching In , in THE GLOBAL EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL POWER (eds. by Tate C. Neal & Vallinder, Torbjörn), New York: New York University Press.
Wai, Robert, 2002, Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization?, 40 Colum. J. Transnat''l L. 209 .
West, James, and Yoon, Dae-Kyu, 1992, The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea: Transforming the Jurisprudence of the Vortex, 40 Am. J. Comparative Law 73
Westbrook, .Jay Lawrence, 2003, International Judicial Negociation, 100 Yale L.J. 2347.
Westbrook, Jay Lawrence, 2000, A Global Solution to Multinational Default, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 2276.
Wiegandt, Manfred H., 1995, Recent Developments: Germany''s International Integration: The Rulings Of The German Federal Constitutional Court On The Maastricht Treaty And The Out-Of-Area Deployment Of German Troops, 10 Am. U.J. Int''l l. & Pol''y 889







QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 方琰(1989)。訊息處理論之分析研究。教育文粹,18,106-125。
2. 廖福特,2000,〈歐洲人權法院—歷史、組織、職權及程序〉,思與言第三十八卷第四期,頁68。
3. 葉俊榮、張文貞,2002,〈轉型法院與法治主義:論最高法院對違法行政命令審查的積極趨勢〉,人文及社會科學集刊第十四卷第四期,頁538。
4. 黃越欽,2003,〈國際勞工公約與憲法法院—兼論大法官釋字第三七三號解釋〉,憲政時代第二十八卷三期,頁15。
5. 孫治本,全球化的概念:全球地方化、民族認同與文明衝突,思與言,三十八卷一期,頁147-184(2003/3)。
6. 朱柔若,〈憲政主義的全球化與公民權的重建:台灣經驗解析〉,憲政時代第二十八卷二期(2002),頁6。
7. 古明峰(1998)。數學應用題的解題認知歷程之探討。教育研究資訊,6,63-67。
8. 吳鐵雄(1991)。中華民國電腦應用教學與電腦輔助教學。資訊與教育,24,8-14。
9. 林曉芳、余民寧(2001)。國中生在數學代數概念學習之評量研究──以二元一次方程式為例。國立政治大學「教育與心理研究」,24,303-326。
10. 林清山、張景媛(1994)。國中代數應用題教學策略效果之評估。教育心理學報,27,35-62。
11. 張新仁(1989)。不同學科的認知歷程分析。教育研究,3,43-59。
12. 張新仁(1990)。從資訊處理談有效的學習策略。教育學刊,9,47-66。
13. 陳明溥(1992)。CAI之發展趨勢,多媒體電腦輔助教學。資訊與教育,28,5-11。
14. 謝哲仁(2000)。電子試算表在高中數學教學之可行性研究。美和技術學院學報,19,199-211。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔