106學年第1學期課程綱要

@尊重智慧財產權,請同學勿隨意影印教科書 。
Please respect the intellectual property rights, and shall not copy the textbooks arbitrarily.

一、課程基本資料
開課序號 1373 課程學制
科目代碼 SYC0029 課程名稱 比較司法政治專題研究
英文名稱 Special Topics on Comparative Judicial Politics
全/半年 必/選修 選修
學分數 2.0 每週授課時數 正課時數: 2 小時
開課系級 政治所(碩)碩博合開
先修課程
課程簡介 本課程以專題講述和主題研討方式,兼採分組報告等方式進行。具體實施方式如下: (一)本課程第一至第四週由授課教師進行講述,第五週起進行主題研討。其進行程序如下:由全體修課研究生就本課程表所指定之教材範圍進行研讀,上課時由排定之研究生以口頭報告方式進行導讀,然後進行共同研討,最後由教師講授歸納分析與批判。第一週課程介紹時,排定各研究生口頭報告之順序與主題。 (二)導讀人於第一小時論文研討時間報告該週研討主題之重要內涵,並提出值得進一步討論之議題3-5個;導讀人應事先將導讀摘要分送教師及同課程研究生。其他同學應個別準備一篇1-2頁長(A4)的「閱讀摘要與心得」,於課堂討論時繳交。 (三)評量方式:課堂參與(class participation,含繳交「閱讀摘要與心得」書面資料、口頭報告、出缺席狀況)佔50%,期末報告佔50%。 (四)期末報告之題目及大綱(含文獻),應於開學後十週內,以A4書面繳交。
課程目標 對應系所核心能力
1. 瞭解司法政治與比較司法政治研究之趨勢與重要性 碩士:
 2-1 具備政治學的研究與教學能力,特別是集中於比較政治、國際政治與國家發展的課題部份。
博士:
 2-1 具備政治學的研究與教學能力,特別是集中於比較政治、國際政治與國家發展的課題部份。
2. 探究美國司法政治之理論與實務 碩士:
 2-1 具備政治學的研究與教學能力,特別是集中於比較政治、國際政治與國家發展的課題部份。
博士:
 2-1 具備政治學的研究與教學能力,特別是集中於比較政治、國際政治與國家發展的課題部份。
3. 分析我國司法政治實務之運作 碩士:
 1-3 理解國家發展概念,特別是有關政治發展的部份能進行比較性研究。
博士:
 1-3 理解國家發展概念,特別是有關政治發展的部份能進行比較性研究。
4. 理解司法制度之政治功能與限制 碩士:
 2-3 增強參加公務人員高等或特種考試之競爭能力。
博士:
 2-3 增強參加公務人員高等或特種考試之競爭能力。
5. 比較台灣與美國司法政治運作之優劣 碩士:
 1-3 理解國家發展概念,特別是有關政治發展的部份能進行比較性研究。
博士:
 1-3 理解國家發展概念,特別是有關政治發展的部份能進行比較性研究。
6. 探究建構本土司法政治學之可能與限制 碩士:
 2-1 具備政治學的研究與教學能力,特別是集中於比較政治、國際政治與國家發展的課題部份。
博士:
 2-1 具備政治學的研究與教學能力,特別是集中於比較政治、國際政治與國家發展的課題部份。

二、教學大綱
授課教師 陳文政
教學進度與主題

週次

進度內容

1

Topic 1: Introduction; Value of Judicial Politics

The Trend of Judicialization of Politics Worldwide.

Reading:Dye, “ Courts: Judicial Politics,” 2007: 452-487.

2

Topic 2: The Modern Origin of Judicial Politics: Marbury v. Madison; Judicial Branch: A Political Institution

1. Reading: Ran Hirschl (2006), The New Constitutionalism and the Judicialization of Pure Politics Worldwide, 75 Fordham Law Review 721-754. (LJ982)

2. Issue Paper and Discussion

3

Topic 3: Constitutionalism v. Democracy

1.Reading: Breyer, Stephen (2011), Making Our Democracy Work: The Yale Lectures, 120 The Yale L. J. 1999-2026. (LJ1228)  

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

4

Topic 4: The Role of Judicial Review in a Constitutional Democracy

1.Reading: Chen, Wen Cheng (2011), On the Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review in a Constitutional Democracy

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

5

Topic 5: Countermajoritarian Difficulty of Judicial Review I

1.Reading: 陳文政等,〈美國司法違憲審查正當性論辯脈絡之分析〉,2011: 1-60

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

6

Topic 6: Countermajoritarian Difficulty of Judicial Review II

1.Reading: 陳文政等,〈美國司法違憲審查正當性論辯脈絡之分析〉,2011: 61-117

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

7

Topic 7: The Institution of Judicial Review in Comparison

1.Reading:

Brewer-Carias, Allan Randolph (1989), Judicial Review in Comparative Law

吳志光(2003),〈混合式違憲審查制度—集中式及分散式違憲審查制度以外的第三條路〉,《比較違憲審制度》,頁23-37

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

8

Topic 8: Political Decision-Making of the Judiciary

1.Reading:

POSNER, RICHARD A. (2010), HOW JUDGES THINK (LB, ch.1, pp.19-56)

Wrightsman, “Steps in the Decision-Making Process,” 2006: 57-84.

O’Brien, “Deciding What to Decide,” 2005 : 231-303.

Barak, “Non-Justiciability, or Political Questions,” 2006:177-189.

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

9

司法制度之政治效應:合憲調控權力運作

1.Reading:

Barak, “Protecting the Constitution and Democracy,” 2006: 20-98.

陳文政,《世紀憲法判決-布希控高爾案之分析》,2006: 263-280

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

 

10

司法制度之政治效應:健全政治參與途徑

1.Reading:

John H. Ely, Democracy and Distrust,1980

Yoshino, Kenji (2011), The New Equal Protection, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 747-803. (LJ1234) (pluralism anxiety)

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

11

司法制度之政治效應:彌合法律與社會之鴻溝

1.Reading:

Barak, “Bridging the Gap between Law and Society,” 2006:

3-19.

Yoshino, Kenji (2011), The New Equal Protection, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 747-803. (LJ1234) (pluralism anxiety)

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

12

司法制度之政治效應:維持制度之正當性

1.Reading: Eisgruber,

“Judicial Review and Democratic Legitimacy,”2001:46-78.

“Judicial Maintenance of Political Institutions,”2001:168-204

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

13

美國司法政治之經驗:憲法判決與總統選舉爭議

司法人員之政治意識型態

1.Reading:

陳文政,《世紀憲法判決-布希控高爾案之分析》,2006: 207-262

陳文政,〈總統任命大法官,大法官選任總統?:布希控高爾案之政治分析〉,2006125-187

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

14

憲法判決與政黨政治運作

1.Readings:

Gillman, “Party Politics and Constitutional Change: The Political Origins of Liberal Judicial Activism,” 2006:138-168.

Barak, “Activism and Self-Restraint,” 2006: 263-282.

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

15

美國司法政治之經驗:憲法判決與黑白種族問題

1.Reading: Yoshino, Kenji (2011), The New Equal Protection, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 747-803. (LJ1234) (pluralism anxiety)

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

 

16

Topic: Judicial Politics in Taiwan

1.Reading: Ginsburg, “Confucian Constitutionalism? The Grand Justices of the Republic of China,” 2003: 106-157.

翁岳生,〈我國憲法訴訟制度之展望〉,2007:1-48

蘇永欽(2008),〈從體系功能的角度看大法官的規範違憲審查走向適切回應社會變遷的司法積極主義()〉,《法令月刊》,59卷,6期,頁71-98

蘇永欽(2008),〈從體系功能的角度看大法官的規範違憲審查走向適切回應社會變遷的司法積極主義()〉,《法令月刊》,59卷,7期,頁4-33

2.Issue Paper and Discussion

 

17

Topic: The Future of Comparative Judicial Politics

Evaluation

教學方法
方式 說明
講述法 講述比較司法政治研究的趨勢和重要性
討論法 針對比較司法政治學術研究核心議題進行討論
合作學習 藉由團體討論與分組討論交換學術觀點與心得
媒體融入教學 引證媒體有關足堪例證比較司法政治學術研究不同觀點的各種分析報導
評量方法
方式 百分比 說明
作業 30 % 針對指定閱讀進行書面作業報告進行形成性評量
課堂討論參與 10 % 藉由參與討論情形以理解學生的學習能力與態度
出席 10 % 出席課堂才能以面對面方式進行參與討論與思辨
報告 50 % 透過學期研究報告撰寫之格式與內容來評量學習者在本課程之學術展現成果
參考書目  

Armingeon, Klaus andKarolina Milewicz (2008), Compensatory Constitutionalization: A ComparativePerspective, 22(2) Global Society179-196. (LJ. 784)

Balkin, Jack M. (2009), FrameworkOriginalism and the Living Constitution,103 NorthwesternUniversity Law Review 549-614. (LJ840)(cf. Strauss, LB. 2010)

Barak, Aharon(2002), The Supreme Court 2001 Term, Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role ofa Supreme Court in a Democracy, 116 HarvardLaw Review 16-162. (LJ376)

Bickel,Alexander M. (1986), The Least DangerousBranch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2nd ed. (NewHaven: Yale University Press).

Castigline,John D. (2010), Qualitative and Quantitative Proportionality: A SpecificCritique of Retributivism, 71 Ohio StateL. J. 71-125. (LJ1172)

Chaskalson, Arthur (2002), “Human Dignityas a Constitutional Value,” in David Kretzmer and Eckart Klein (eds.), The Concept of Human Dignity in Human RightsDiscourse (Hague: Kluwer Law International), pp.133-144.

Chemerinsky,Erwin (2002), A Grand Theory of Constitutional Law100 MichiganLaw Review 1249-1264. (LJ. 380) 

Chemerinsky, Erwin (2000), Losing Faith:America without Judicial Review, 98 MichiganLaw Review 1416-1435.

Chen, Wen Cheng(2011), On the Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review in a Constitutional Democracy, paper presented at The 2011Annual Meetings of the Law and Society Association (LSA), San Francisco, California, U.S.A., June 2-5, 2011.

Clark, Bradford R. (2003), Unitary JudicialReview, 72 The George Washington LawReview 319-353.

Dahl, Robert A.(2006), A Preface to Democratic Theory,expanded ed.(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) .

Dahl, Robert A. (2003),“Can International Organizations beDemocratic A Skeptic’s View,” in David Held andAnthony McGrew (eds.), The GlobalTransformations Reader-An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, 2ndedn. (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press), pp. 530-541.

Dahl, Robert A.(1957/2001), Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a NationalPolicy-Maker, 50 Emory Law Journal 563-582.(LJ276)

Dodrill,Christopher S. (2009), In Defense of “Footnote Four”: A Historical Analysis ofthe New Deal’s Effect on Land Regulation in the U. S. Supreme Court, 72 Law and Contemporary Problems 191-204.(LJ1091)

Dorsen, Norman , Michel Rosenfeld, AndrasSajo, and Susanne Baer (eds.)( 2003), ComparativeConstitutionalism- Cases and Materials ( St. Paul, Minnesota: West Group).

Dershowitz, Alan M. (2001), SupremeInjustice-How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: OxfordUniversity Press).(LB99)

Dworkin,Ronald (2011), Justice for Hedgehogs(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Dye, ThomasR. (2007), “ Courts: Judicial Politics,” in Thomas R. Dye, Politics in America (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education),pp.452-487.

Epstein, Lee and Jeffrey A. Segal (2005), Advice and Consent-The Politics of JudicialAppointments (New York: Oxford University Press).

  “Politics, Presidents, andJudging,”pp.117-141.

  “The Politics of Appointments Meets thePolitics of Judging,”pp.143-145.

Eberle, Edward J.(2002), Dignity and Liberty-Constitutional Visions in Germany and the UnitedStates (Westport: Praeger Publishers).

Eskridge,William N. Jr. (1998), Relationships between Formalism and Functionalism inSeparation of Powers Cases, 22 HarvardJournal of LawPublic Policy 21-29.

Eisgruber,Christopher L. (2001), ConstitutionalSelf-Government (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).

“Judicial Review and Democratic Legitimacy,”pp.46-78.

“Judicial Maintenance of Political Institutions,”pp.168-204.

Ely, John Hart (1980), Democracy and Distrust – A Theory of Judicial Review     

    (Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University Press).

Epstein, Lee, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin (2001), The Supreme Courtas a Strategic National Policymaker, 50 Emory Law Journal 583-611.(LJ277)

Fallon, RichardH. Jr. (2001), Stare Decisis and the Constitution: An Essay on ConstitutionalMethodology, 76 New York University Law Review 570-597. (LJ)

Fallon,Richard H. Jr. (2004), The DynamicConstitution-An Introduction to American Constitutional Law (New York:Cambridge University Press).

Fallon,Richard H. Jr. (2006), Judicially Manageable Standards and ConstitutionalMeaning, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1274-1332.(LJ680)

Gillman, Howard (2006),“Party Politics and Constitutional Change: The Political Origins of LiberalJudicial Activism,” in Ronald Kahn et al.(eds.), Supreme Court and AmericanPolitical Development (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas),pp.138-168.

Ginsburg, Tom (2008), Judicialization ofAdministrative Governance: Causes, Consequences and Limits, 3 National Taiwan University Law Review 1-29.(LJ1002)

Goldsworthy,Jeffrey (2007), “Conclusions,” in Jeffrey Goldsworthy ed., Interpreting Constitutions- A Comparative Study (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press), pp. 321-345.

Guinier,Lani (2009), Courting the People: Demosprudence and the Law/ Politics Divide,89 Boston U. L. Rev. 539-61. (LJ1222)

Halley, Michael(2010), Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Review: A Case of the TailWagging the Dog, 108 MICH. L. REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS58-63. (LJ1086)

Hamilton, MarciA. (2009), Political Responses to Supreme Court Decisions, 32 Harvard Journal of Law Public Policy 113-123. (LJ886)

Ides, Allan (2008), Foreword: Comparative Judicial Review, 41 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 477-480.(LJ1020)

Jackson,Vicki C. (2006), Constitutions as Living Trees? Comparative Constitutional Lawand Interpretive Metaphors, 75 FordhamLaw Review 921-960. (LJ973)

Kommers, DonaldP. (2007), “Germany: Balancing Rights and Duties,” in Jeffrey Goldsworthy ed., Interpreting Constitutions- A ComparativeStudy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 161-214.

Lee,Chien-Liang (2010), A Comparative Study of Judicial Review Procedure Type—TheOption of Constitutional Procedure System in Reform of the ConstitutionalReview of Taiwan, 5(1) National Taiwan University Law Review 73-126. (LJ1135)

Lee,Fredrick J. (2010), Global Institutional Choice, 85 New York U. L. Rev. 328-357. (LJ1093)

Lever, Annabelle (2009), Democracy and Judicial Review: Are They ReallyIncompatible? 7(4) Perspectives onPolitics 805-822. (LJ1165)

Levinson, Daryl (2011), Parchment and Politics: The Positive Puzzle ofConstitutional Commitment, 124 Harvard Law Review 658-746.(LJ1162)

Manning, John F. (2011), Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation,124 Harv. L. Rev. 1939-2040. (LJ1237)

Martinez, Jenny S. (2011), International Courts and the U. S.Constitution: Reexamining the History, 159 U.of Pennsylvania L. Rev. 1069-1140. (LJ1255)

Monaghan,Henry Paul (2007), Article III and Supranational Judicial Review, 107 Columbia Law Review 833-882. (LJ847)

O’Brien, David M. (2005), “Deciding What toDecide,” in David M. O’Brien, Storm Center- The Supreme Court in AmericanPolitics (New York: Norton, W. W. Company),pp.231-303.

Ohlendorf, John David (2008), Politics,Constitutional Interpretation, and Media Ecology: An Argument against JudicialMinimalism, 31 Harvard Journal of Law Public Policy 1139-1158.(LJ801)

Post, Robert (2009), Law Professors and PoliticalScientists: Observations on the Law/Politics Distinction in theGuinier/Rosenberg Debate, 89 BostonUniversity Law Review 581-587. (LJ927)

Powe, L. A.Jr.(2010), The Court’s Constitution, 12 J. of Constitutional Law 529-547.(LJ1180) (Departmentalism)

Prakash,Saikrishna B. (2003), Questions for the Critics of Judicial Review, 72 The George Washington Law Review 354-380.

Prakash,Saikrishna B. and John C. Yoo (2003), The Origins of Judicial Review, 70 The University of Chicago Law Review887-982.

Raz, Joseph (1999),“ On the Authority andInterpretation of Constitutions: Some Preliminaries,” in Larry Alexander (ed.),Constitutionalism-PhilosophicalFoundations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp.152-193.

Rehnquist,William H.(2001), “Presidential Appointments to the Supreme Court,” in WilliamH. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court,revised and updated (New York: Vintage Books),pp.209-213.

Reinhardt, Stephen (2010), Lifeto Death: Our Constitution and How It Grows, 44 UC Davis L. Rev. 391-411. (LJ1199)

Ristroph,Alice (2005), Proportionality as a Principle of Limited Government, 55 Duke Law Journal 263-331. (LJ. 665)

Rosenfeld,Michel (2001), The Rule of Law and the Legitimacy of Constitutional Democracy,74 Southern California Law Review1307-1351.

Sajo, Andras (1999), Limiting Government—An Introduction to Constitutionalism (New York:Central European University Press).

Schanzenbach,Max M. & Emerson Tiller (2008), Reviewing the Sentencing Guidelines:Judicial Politics, Empirical Evidence, and Reform, 75 The University of Chicago Law Review 715-760. (LJ966)

Schapiro, Robert A. (2001), Foreword: In the Twilight of the Nation-State:Subnational Constitutions in the New World Order, 39 Rutgers Law Journal 801-835. (LJ1042)

Schor,Miguel (2008), Mapping Comparative Judicial Review, 7 Washington U. GlobalStudies L. Rev. 257-287. (LJ1189)

Segal, Jeffrey A. Harold J. Spaeth (2004), The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited (CambridgeCambridge University Press).

Shaw, JO (2003),Process, Responsibility and Inclusion in EU Constitutionalism, 9 (1) EuropeanLaw Journal 45-68. (LJ.554)

Stith, Richard(2008), Securing the Rule of Law Through Interpretive Pluralism: An Argumentfrom Comparative Law, 35 HastingsConstitutional Law Quarterly 401-447.LJ.770

Tang, Dennis T.C.(湯德宗)(2001),” Judicial Review and theTransition of

Authoritarianism in Taiwan” inTaiwan Studies Promotion Committee of Academic Sinicaed.,Change of an Authoritarian RegimeTaiwan in thePost-Martial Law EraTaipeiInstitute of Taiwan HistoryPreparatory Office,Academic Sinica,pp.439-470.LJ.368

Tomlins, Christopher L. (ed.)(2005), The UnitedStates Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Tully, James2002, “Constitutionalism in an Age ofCultural Diversity” in James Tully, StrangeMultiplicity-- Constitutionalism in an Age of Cultural DiversityCambridge, UKCambridge University Press, pp.183-212.

White, John Jr. (2005), Religion and the AmericanConstitutional Experiment (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press), pp.249-258.

Whittington,Keith E. (2007), Political Foundations ofJudicial Supremacy— The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and ConstitutionalLeadership in U.S. History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).

Wrightsman,Lawrence S. (2006), The Psychologyof the Supreme Court (New York:Oxford University Press).

“TheSelective Nature of Supreme Court Justices,” p.29-55.

“Steps inthe Decision-Making Process,”pp.57-84.

Yeh,Jiunn-Rong (2009), The Emergence of Asian Constitutionalism: Features inComparison, 4(3) National TaiwanUniversity Law Review 39-53. (LJ1140)

Yeh,Jiunn-Rong & Wen-Chen Chang (2009), The Changing Landscape of ModernConstitutionalism: Transitional Perspective, 4 National Taiwan University Law Review 146-183. (LJ1003)

Yoshino,Kenji (2011), The New Equal Protection, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 747-803. (LJ1234)(pluralism anxiety)

史慶璞(2007),《美國憲法理論與實務》,台北:三民書局。

史慶璞(2001),《美國憲法與政府權力》,台北:三民書局。

  (2003),《憲法的解釋與適用》,台北:三民書局。

 庚(2000),〈憲法審判制度的起源與發展兼論我國大法官釋憲制度〉,《法令月刊》5110期,頁805-825。(CJ.211

  (1998),〈基本權的三種性質-兼論大法官關於基本權解釋的理論體系〉,收於司法院大法官書記處編,《司法院大法官釋憲五十週年紀念論文集》,台北:司法院,頁1-51

吳志光(2003),〈混合式違憲審查制度集中式及分散式違憲審查制度以外的第三條路〉,收於氏著,《比較違憲審制度》,台北:神州出版,頁23-37

李念祖(2000),〈美國憲法上「政治問題」理論與釋字328號解釋〉,氏著《司法者的憲法》,台北:五南,頁159-173

李念祖(2000),〈再論美國憲法上「政治問題」理論在我國憲法解釋上之運用〉,氏著《司法者的憲法》,台北:五南,頁175-214

李建良(2007),〈憲法人權清單改革芻議--「台灣基本權利憲章」草案初稿〉,收於許志雄等編,《現代憲法的理論與現實》,台北:元照出版,頁361-402

林子儀等(2003),《憲法--權力分立》,台北:學林出版,頁19-103

林子儀(2002),〈憲政體制與機關爭議之釋憲方法論憲政體制問題釋憲方法之應用-美國聯邦最高法院審理權力分立案件之解釋方法〉,收於《新世紀經濟法制之建構與挑戰》,台北:元照出版,頁5-58

林超駿(2002),〈如何繼受美國法上之憲法解釋理論,以促進大法官之釋憲功能〉,收於劉孔中、陳新民主編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》(第三輯上),台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁33-90

林超駿(2003),〈略論美國最高法院大法官任命程序之規範與實際〉,《月旦法學》101期,頁40-50

法治斌、董保城(2004),《憲法新論》,台北:元照出版。

胡錦光(2006),《違憲審查比較研究》,北京:中國人民大學出版社。

翁岳生(2007),〈我國憲法訴訟制度之展望〉,《中研院法學期刊》,創刊號,頁1-48

翁岳生(2000),〈憲法解釋與人民自由權利之保障〉,收於簡資修、李建良主編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》(第二輯),台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁1-22

翁岳生(1998),〈我國釋憲制度之特徵與展望〉,收於司法院編,《司法院大法官釋憲五十週年紀念論文集》,台北:司法院,頁285-323。(CJ.101

 朗、隋杜卿主編(2002),《憲政體制與總統權力》,台北:國家政策研究基金會。

許志雄(2000),〈制憲權的法理〉,收於氏著《憲法秩序之變動》,台北:元照出版,頁43-94

許志雄、陳銘祥、蔡茂寅、周志宏、蔡宗珍(2001),《現代憲法論》,台北:元照出版。

許宗力(2006),〈抽象集中式司法審查之起源與發展〉,收於施茂林主編,《跨世紀法學新思維》,台北:元照出版,頁15-47

許育典 (2006),憲法,台北:元照。

張文貞(2009)憲法與國際人權法的匯流兼論我國大法官解釋之實踐〉,台灣法學會編,《憲法解釋之裡稐與實踐》,第6輯,台北:中央研究院法律研究所,223-272

張文貞、葉俊榮(2005),〈邁向憲政主義-憲政體制的變遷與解釋〉,收於湯德宗主編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》(第四輯),台北:中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處,頁411-460

張正修(2008),《比較憲法與政治》(第一冊),台北:新學林。

張世賢、陳恆均(2006),〈比較司法制度〉,《比較政府》,台北:五南,頁277-316

張嘉尹(2002),〈憲法解釋、憲法理論與「結果考量」--憲法解釋方法論的問題〉,收於劉孔中、陳新民主編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》(第三輯上),台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁1-32

陳文政(2006),《世紀憲法判決-布希控高爾案之分析》,台北:五南。

陳文政(2006),〈總統任命大法官,大法官選任總統?:布希控高爾案之政治分析〉,《政治學報》42期,頁125-187

陳文政、陳偉杰、莊旻達、王上維(2011),〈美國司法違憲審查正當性論辯脈絡之分析〉,《政大法學評論》(TSSCI)122期,頁83-199

陳春生(2000),司法院大法官解釋關於制度性保障概念意涵之探討,收於李建良、簡資修主編「憲法解釋之理論與實務(二)」,台北:中研院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁273-324

陳英鈐(2002),〈憲法機關權限爭訟德國與我國憲法愛國主義的誕生〉,收於《新世紀經濟法治之建構與挑戰》,台北:元照出版,頁325-420。(cf.LJ.587Mark Tushnet,2003

陳淳文(2003),〈談法國憲法委員會委員之選任法制〉,《月旦法學》101期,頁18-26

陳新民(1998),〈立法者的審慎義務與釋憲者的填補任務由德國聯邦憲法法院「教室十字架案」談起〉,收於劉孔中、李建良主編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》(第一輯),台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁93-119

陳慈陽、王毓正(2003),〈論司法院大法官解釋對於基本權保障之理論發展〉,《月旦法學》98期,頁14-30

陳愛娥(2002)〈我國現行憲法下總統角色的定位單純國家統一的象徵或真正的政府首長〉,收於陳隆志主編《新世紀新憲政憲政研討會論文集》,台北:元照出版,頁290-312

黃昭元(2003),〈司法審查之制度選擇與司法院定位〉,《台大法學論叢》325期,頁55-118

黃德福、蘇子喬(2007),〈大法官釋憲對我國憲政體制的型塑〉,《台灣民主季刊》,4卷,1期,頁1-49

葉俊榮(2007),〈台灣2005憲改的詮釋--憲法變遷的典範轉移〉,收於許志雄等編,《現代憲法的理論與現實》,台北:元照出版,頁145-162

葉俊榮 (1997),〈消散中的「憲法時刻」〉,收於《現代國家與憲法》,台北:月旦出版社,頁237-292

葉俊榮 (1995),〈美國最高法院與正當法律程序:雙階結構與利益衡量理論的演變與檢討〉,載於焦興鎧主編,《美國最高法院重要判例之研究:1990-1992》,台北,中央研究院歐美研究所,頁63-87

楊與齡(1998),〈我國憲法解釋之沿革〉,收於司法院編《大法官釋憲史料》,台北:司法院,頁11-46。(CJ.100

廖福特(2004)憲法與國際人權條約陌生的互動〉,台灣法學會編,《二十一世紀憲政風雲》,台北:元照,207-254

蔡宗珍(2003),〈我國憲法審判制度之檢討〉,《月旦法學》,98期,頁49-66。另收於蔡宗珍(2004),《憲法與國家()》,台北:元照,頁101-134

蘇永欽(2007),〈裁判憲法訴願?德國和台灣違憲審查制度的選擇〉,《法令月刊》,58卷,3期,頁4-22

蘇永欽(2002),〈憲法在台灣國家發展過程中的角色〉,收於氏著《走入新世紀的憲政主義》,台北:元照,頁457-

蘇永欽(1999),〈憲法解釋憲政成長的指標〉,收於氏著《違憲審查》,台北:學林,頁53-74

蘇永欽(1999),〈分裂國家的憲法政策〉,收於氏著《違憲審查》,台北:學林,頁297-308

蘇永欽(1995),〈大法官解釋與台灣的社會變遷合憲性控制的另一個面向〉,收於氏著《合憲性控制的理論與實際》,台北:月旦,頁271-

蘇俊雄(1998),〈從「整合理論」之觀點論個案憲法解釋之規範效力及其界限〉,收於劉孔中、李建良主編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》(第一輯),台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁1-31

版權所有 © 2024 國立臺灣師範大學