法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
論體育競技國家代表隊選手服補充兵役之合憲性爭議(On the Constitutionality of Supplementary Military Service for Members of National Athletic Team)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 蔡孟翰
出版日期: 2023.12
刊登出處: 台灣/軍法專刊第 69 卷 第 5 期/103-129 頁
頁  數: 27 點閱次數: 173
下載點數: 108 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 軍法專刊社 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 補充兵役基本義務平等權比例原則
中文摘要: 現行兵役法第 17 條第 1 項規定,常備役男若為國家代表隊之運動員,得依該條規定取得補充兵役資格,此本為國家保護運動員職業生涯、促進國家運動競爭力之政策;然此種規定存在多種隱憂,一為此種國家若欲以政策給予特定族群服兵役義務之減免優惠,其法律保留之密度尚有爭議;二為此種規定顯然與一般人民服兵役之規定不同,蓋運動員在地位上並非居於劣勢,因此是否構成對於人民平等權之侵害,自有探討必要;三為憲法上基本義務若遭國家以政策考量而採取限縮,則該限縮之程度界限,與其合憲性均值深思。
本文以服兵役義務乃憲法上基本義務起首,我國對於基本義務之性質、內涵,歷來皆有爭議,故先針對基本義務進行定性,試圖在現行框架下探討基本義務,並以合憲性審查作為此種規定之檢驗。現有違憲審查模式,幾乎皆由基本權保護之角度出發,若欲適用於基本義務之違憲審查,自應有所調整,本文亦將探尋適合基本義務審查之路線,並針對兵役法第 17 條第 1 項之合憲性爭議提出見解。
英文關鍵詞: Supplementary Military ServiceFundamental DutyEqual ProtectionProportionality
英文摘要: According to the current Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the Conscription Act, if a male reserve conscript is an athlete representing the national team, he may obtain supplementary military service qualifications in accordance with the provisions of this article. This is aimed at safeguarding the professional careers of athletes and enhancing the national competitiveness in sports.
However, this type of regulation raises various concerns. Firstly, if the state intends to grant exemptions or preferential treatment for specific groups in terms of military service obligations through policies, how can the principle of legal reservation be effectively implemented? Secondly, since this regulation clearly differs from the provisions governing military service for the general population, as athletes are not inherently at a disadvantage, we need to explore whether it may constitute a violation of the people's right to equal protection. Thirdly, if fundamental duties under the constitution are restricted by the state based on policy considerations, it is crucial to deeply consider the extent of such restrictions and their constitutionality.
We will first explore the nature and content of the duty of performing military service as a fundamental constitutional obligation. We will then explore whether such provisions are constitutional under current law. Furthermore, since existing models of unconstitutional review primarily focus on safeguarding fundamental rights, we will attempt to make adjustments and seek out a model of unconstitutional review that is suitable for fundamental dutie. Finally, we provide our opinions on whether Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the Military Service Act is constitutional.
目  次: 壹、前言
一、原因案件
二、問題意識之形成
貳、服兵役作為基本義務之分析
一、憲法上基本義務之性質
二、服兵役義務之內涵探討
(一)服兵役義務之本質
(二)補充兵役資格
(三)受到政策優惠之國家代表隊
(四)國家代表隊選手服補充兵役所負義務
(五)系爭規定之法律性質
參、基本義務之限縮
一、限縮基本義務之本質
(一)是否屬於優惠性差別待遇
(二)是否屬於給付行政
(三)難以被歸類之基本義務限縮
二、限縮基本義務之合憲性
(一)形式合憲性
(二)實質合憲性
肆、結論
一、爭議個案之再思考
二、本文建議與未來思考方向
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
蔡孟翰,論體育競技國家代表隊選手服補充兵役之合憲性爭議,軍法專刊,第 69 卷 第 5 期,103-129 頁,2023年12月。
返回功能列