「死憲法」是「活基本法」
日前，林泰和教授為文討論中華民國與憲法的「一中」，抨擊中華民國已成為政客騙票的工具。文中述及中華民國與憲法雖於1949年在中國滅亡，卻仍在台灣運作，其轉折是蔣介石藉著韓戰而開啟的「中華民國台灣化」，透過日華和約與協防條約使之固定化，再經過民主化而成為現在的政治架構。
In his recent article, Professor Lin Tai-ho addressed the question of
"one China." He commented that
the slogan of “protecting the Republic of China(R.O.C.) has converted to
political lip-service. The reason of the
weird phenomena that R.O.C. and its Constitution deceased in 1949, yet
re-operated in Taiwan should be attributed to Generalissimo Chiang
Kai-shek(Gimo), who started R.O.C.’s Taiwanzation through the conclusion of two
treaties: the Treaty of Peace between R.O.C. and Japan of 1952, and the
R.O.C.-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954.
Taiwan's further democratization in the 1990s added the bricks of the
legitimacy engineering.
對此，歐瑋群先生以憲法學角度回應：所謂中華民國憲法雖已被廢棄，卻以綜合大法官會議解釋與慣例補的方式，形成台灣獨自的法秩序。該文跳脫一貫的法統與條文主義觀點，強調彈性成長的憲法秩序（法域），而不拘泥於刻板「憲法規定」。
A talented legal aide Mr. Ou Wei-Chun responded to Lin’s article, saying
that though R.O.C. Constitution has perished in 1949 by the Chinese
people. Instead of introducing the
traditional theory and the wording techniques, Mr. Ou introduced constitutional
interpretation by the Grand Juries and legal practices to explain that Taiwan
has established a separate and distinct legal jurisdiction. Mr. Ou took the organic view of jurisdiction,
not word by word approach that the jurists prefer.
要分清楚的是，林文說蔣介石將「中華民國台灣化」，絕非蔣當年的意圖，僅屬方法論的「事後解釋」。至於德國基本法的臨時性與過渡性，甚至於其為「外部授權」的結果，較少被國人注意。
Prof. Lin's “Gimo started R.O.C.’s Taiwanization” is not correct. Taiwnization was not Gimo’s intention. Prof. Lin’s comment was an "explanation
a posteriori" in methodological viewpoint.
Comparing to R.O.C. Constitution, he also suggested the interim and
transition features of the Basic Law of Germany, which hinder the state being a
solid whole.
1948年美英法三國在倫敦會議制訂包括〈關於憲法決定的聲明〉、〈關於改組議會的聲明〉、〈憲法生效後軍事總督權限的聲明〉的〈德國未來政治發展文件〉（俗稱法蘭克福文件），交由各區軍事總督轉頒各邦首相，授權其制訂基本法來整合西佔領區，使之具有國格而加入國際社會。東德五邦加入西德而統一後，德國仍沿用基本法未變。
The leaders of the U.S., U.K. and France and the Benelux countries
convened in London in 1948 to discuss the post-war situation of the Western
zones of Germany. They concluded three
statements, also known as the Frankfurt Documents, on the future of
Germany. Three powers ordered their
military governors, they instructed the minister presidents of the Western
Länder to draft the Basic Law. The
Federal Republic of Germany was formed upon the plebiscite of the Basic Law and
the approval of the occupying powers.
Upon the restoring of sovereignty, West Germany was allowed to return to
the international community. After the
dissolution of East Germany, its five Länder joined West Germany individually,
leaving the Basic Law unchanged.
歐文則以美國和以色列為例，輔證彈性憲法秩序—前者不動本文，以增修方式使之與時俱進；後者無「一部」憲法，而是制訂13部基本法，內容合起來便是一部根本大法。
Mr. Ou’s article then emphasized the organic evolving of the
constitutions with the example of the U.S. Constitution and the Israeli basic
laws. The U.S. Constitution contains
only seven sections, while has 27 amendments to meet the drastic change of era since
1791. The State of Israel has no single
written constitution. Instead, it has 13
independent basic laws working together as a constitution.
兩作者都確認「中華民國與憲法已死」這命題，但對「此物如何能在台灣有效運作」，有不同的理論途徑。關鍵是，任何企圖為此特異現象建構新理論的人，都必須整合處理「死、活」兩命題，否則將造成台灣法秩序的崩潰。
Two authors both endorsed the premise that “R.O.C. and its constitution
have dead in 1949;” nevertheless, they have different approaches referring to
the fact that “how could it be possible for this perished Chinese constitution
and government still operates in Taiwan?”
One has to deal with the issue of “not to be or to be,” to constitute a comprehensive theory. Otherwise, Taiwan’s public law system and
politics will be crashing in a second.
中華民國與憲法在1949年死亡，到1952（或1954）活起來、運作。3-5年的時間空白，證明：此後在台灣有效運作的主體，絕非「中國政府與憲法」，只是借用其名的「台灣當局」。
There was 3 to 5 years discontinuity between the dead of ROC and the
constitution in 1949 and the re-operation in 1952 or 1954. The discontinuity indicates that the "Governing
authorities on Taiwan" are not the Chinese government R.O.C. So does the Constitution.
憲法只是根本大法的名稱之一。它處在法律與政治交會之地，擁有一般法律所欠缺的彈性；它既是內國法，也深受國際法的牽引，內在或外在的合法授權是其正當性基礎。
The supreme law of the territory is not limited to its terminology. The constitution, basic law, fundamental law,
organic law, etc. may refer to the same thing.
The supreme law is at the point of intersection where laws and politics
converge. It possesses the flexibility
that the ordinary laws are short of. It
is a municipal law yet is deeply connected to international law. The mandate from the people (inner viewpoint)
and the international community (outer viewpoint), make the supreme law
legitimate.
新國家的第一部憲法，常常是管理國或國際法的授權結果。台灣的憲政秩序，也是這樣而來。
The first constitution of a new-born state is the mandate of its
administering state or international law.
The legal practice of Taiwan will be an example.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
請網友務必留下一致且可辨識的稱謂
顧及閱讀舒適性，段與段間請空一行