| 關 鍵 詞： |
違憲審查；憲法解釋；憲法訴訟；司法審查；憲法法庭 |
| 中文摘要： |
違憲審查制度的「日本經驗」尤其是日本憲法學上的「憲法裁判論」在海峽兩岸的憲法解釋制度改革論議之中均已引起相當地關注和迴響，兩岸學者對於「日本經驗」的認識也存在一些共通之處。關於司法消極主義的根源，有學者將之歸結為最高裁判所忙於民刑事案件之審理而無法充分發揮違憲審查的功能，但這種看法卻不能解釋：為何最高裁判所對於做憲法判斷採積極主義的立場，而僅僅對於做違憲判斷採消極主義的立場。另外，職業法官也未必存在保守傾向。在日本，下級裁判所判決違憲的情況其實並不少見，只不過這些案件一旦上訴到最高裁判所，下級裁判所的判?幾乎全都被推翻。
實際上，憲法裁判所構想在日本憲法學界尚未被普遍接受。雖然日本學者基於學術立場，對憲法訴訟的論述大多帶有批判性的指向，但不應因此而簡單地認為日本在大陸法系司法制度背景下導入美國式司法審查制度的努力是失敗的。最高裁判所的司法消極主義並非憲法判斷的消極主義，而是違憲判斷的消極主義。其根源並非憲法訴訟制度本身，而在於司法獨立和政治生態。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
constitutional review；constitutional interpretation；constitutional lawsuit；judicial review；constitutional court |
| 英文摘要： |
The Japanese experience of constitutional review and the discussion on establishing Constitutional Court in Japan have been concerned and discussed in the discussion of constitutional interpretation system reform at Chinese Mainland and Taiwan. There are also some similarities between the scholars' understanding of Japanese experience. Regarding the root of judicial passivism, some scholars attribute it to the fact that the Japanese Supreme Court is busy with civil and criminal cases so that it cannot fully exercise the function of judicial review. However, this view cannot explain why the Japanese Supreme Court is active in doing judicial review and passive in unconstitutional judgment. In addition, professional judges are not always conservative. In Japan, unconstitutional judgments are not uncommon in local courts, but once these cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, the unconstitutional judgments of the local courts are always overturned.
Actually, the Claim to establish Constitutional Court has not yet been widely accepted among Japanese scholars. Although Japanese scholars are always critical in discussing constitutional cases from an academic standpoint, it does not mean that Japan's efforts to import the American-style judicial review under the tradition of the civil-law judicial system have failed. The judicial passivism of Japanese Supreme Court is not a passivism in doing judicial review but a passivism in unconstitutional judgment, and its source is not the American-style judicial review system itself but the problem of judicial independence and political environment.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、引言
貳、日本憲法學上的憲法裁判論
一、戰後初期的憲法裁判所構想
二、90 年代以來的憲法裁判所構想
（一）憲法裁判所設置論的提起
（二）另一種思路：最高裁判所改革論
三、對憲法裁判所構想的批判理論
（一）樋口陽一
（二）蘆部信喜
（三）諸根貞夫
（四）奧平康弘
（五）市川正人
參、日本的憲法裁判論在臺灣的影響
一、憲法解釋制度發展的課題
二、日本違憲審查制度研究的狀況
三、憲法解釋制度論中的日本影響
（一）司法行政與司法審判之分與合
（二）從「多元多軌」到「一元單軌」
（三）關於「日本經驗」的負面認識
肆、日本的憲法裁判論在中國大陸的影響
一、憲法解釋制度發展的課題
二、日本違憲審查制度研究的狀況
三、憲法解釋制度論中的日本影響
伍、結語
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|