法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 基因科技風險之立法與基本權利之保障-以德國聯邦憲法法院判決為中心(Legislation and Protection of Fundamental Rights on the Risk of Genetic Engineering-Focusing on Judgments of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany)
編著譯者: 陳信安
出版日期: 2014.07
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 26 卷 第 1 期 /1-46 頁
頁  數: 46 點閱次數: 735
下載點數: 184 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳信安
關 鍵 詞: 危險風險風險立法基因科技基因改造生物國家保護義務
中文摘要: 本文嘗試由德國聯邦憲法法院之判決出發,探究基因科技之立法特色及相關憲法爭議。即便基因科技對於人類身體、健康,乃至於整體生態環境具有無法預測之損害風險,但鑒於其能為人類生活所帶來諸多機會與益處,因此在立法上並未禁止從事與基因科技有關之各類行為。但國家為履行其所負之安全保障責任,乃透過風險立法之方式課予相關人員特定之行為義務,以求能避免,或至少降低相關基因科技行為對人類身體、健康以及整體生態環境造成損害之風險。然而,相關行為義務之課予,乃涉及對於相關人員,甚至是第三人基本權利之限制,此即須立法者藉由利益衡量以為妥適之安排。再者,由於基因科技目前仍處於持續發展之階段,且對於該領域之諸多問題,目前仍未有充分之知識與經驗得加以掌握與解決。也因此,立法者為因應學術及科技之發展,於立法上乃運用許多不確定法律概念,同時並授權由行政機關在進行風險評估與風險判斷時,進一步將之具體化。是類情形也彰顯基因科技立法時,因規範對象之特殊性而使規範內容出現諸多異於傳統安全立法之特性。
英文關鍵詞: DangerRiskProtective Obligation of the StateGenetic EngineeringGenetically Modified Organism
英文摘要: This study attempts to investigate the legislation and fundamental rights on the risk of Genetic Engineering issues by looking into the judgments of Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Although the genetic engineering could have damaging impacts on human health and even the environment, it also brings a number of benefits and chances to human life. This leads to the debates on whether the legislation prohibits little on a variety of activities regarding genetic engineering.
As nations have the responsibility for safety guarantee, particular behavioral obligations are to be relevant authorities through legislation, which thus avoid, or at least, reduce possible impacts on human and environment. However, these particular behavioral obligations could limit relevant authorities ‘and the third parties’ fundamental rights, and therefore require lawgivers to make appropriate judgments by weighing of interests. Moreover, since the genetic engineering is on a dynamic growth stage and continues its development, problems grow as well. Yet there are not enough and sufficient knowledge and experiences on solving these problems.
With the advent of new development of science and technology, lawgivers may apply a range of legal terms without precise definitions, and meanwhile delegate the administrative agency to concretize the involved risks while making risk assessment and decisions. This indicates the fact that the legislation regarding genetic engineering differ from traditional security legislation in many different aspects due to the uniqueness of the object.
目  次: 壹、基因科技與立法
一、基因科技之機會與風險
二、德國基因科技法之立法沿革
貳、聯邦憲法法院之裁判事由與系爭規範內容
一、當事人之主張
二、系爭規定之規範內容
(一)概念定義之規定
(二)釋出及上市許可之要件
(三)產地登記制度之規定
(四)處理上市之基因改造產品之規定
參、基因科技立法之危險防範、風險預防與安全
一、傳統之危險防範概念
二、風險概念與立法
(一)規範中之風險概念
(二)三階層之概念體系
(三)二階層之概念體系
三、德國基因科技法之二階層立法模式
肆、基因科技風險立法之憲法基礎
一、基本權利之保護義務
(一)聯邦憲法法院之見解
(二)國家目的之觀點?
(三)回歸基本權利觀點之論理見解
二、自然生存基礎之保障
伍、基因科技風險立法之憲法爭議
一、不確定法律概念之運用與明確性原則
二、授權立法與國會保留
三、風險立法與基本權利
(一)自由與安全之衝突及衡平
(二)危險臨界值作為自由與安全之最佳化界線
(三)以比例原則檢視預防義務規定之合憲性
陸、本文結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列