English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 88284/117783 (75%)
Visitors : 23396116      Online Users : 93
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/120270


    Title: 臺灣原住民族文化資產保存法制:以國際公約與美國文化資產法制為比較對象
    The System of Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage Preservation Act of Indigenous Peoples: The Comparison with International Conventions and Cultural Heritage Preservation Legal System of the U.S.
    Authors: 余芳珍
    Yu, Fang-Chen
    Contributors: 廖元豪
    Liao, Yuan-Hao
    余芳珍
    Yu, Fang-Chen
    Keywords: 文化資產保存法
    原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例
    原住民族文化資產處理辦法
    文化資產
    文化遺產
    智慧財產
    原住民族
    Cultural Heritage Preservation Act
    Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples
    Cultural Heritage
    Cultural Property
    Intellectual Property
    Indigenous Peoples
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2018-10-01 12:12:43 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 臺灣的「文化資產保存法」於1982年5月26日公布施行,其後進行了七次修訂:1997年1月22日第一次修訂公布、1997年5月14日第二次修訂公布、2000年2月9日第三次修訂公布、2002年6月12日第四次修訂公布、2005年2月5日第五次修訂公布、2011年11月9日第六次修訂公布、2016年7月27日第七次修訂公布。前四次為部分條文修訂,第五次是首次全面性修訂,第七次則是第二次全面性修訂,亦是1982年立法以來,修訂範圍最廣的。
    現行「文化資產保存法」並未直接涉及原住民族文化資產層面,而「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」係指「原住民族傳統之宗教祭儀、音樂、舞蹈、歌曲、雕塑、編織、圖案、服飾、民俗技藝或其他文化成果之表達」,並未含括古物與古蹟保存。「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」於2017年7月18日訂立,然而其保護客體與「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」卻有重疊之處。因此,「文化資產」(cultural property)與「智慧財產」(intellectual property)之間的差異為何,是本論文寫作之源起。本論文採取比較法視角,從與文化資產相關之國際公約與美國法著手,析論「文化資產」與「智慧財產」之差異,進而分析原住民族文化資產之特殊性,冀望能提出對於原住民族文化資產保護之可行修法建議。
    臺灣「文化資產保存法」之英譯為 Cultural Heritage Preservation Law,“cultural heritage”一詞譯為「文化遺產」,意為以祖先傳承為核心,保護值得保存傳世於後代的文化。「文化資產」英譯為 “cultural property”,承載財產權的意涵,目的為保護所有權人的權利。臺灣「文化資產保存法」具有濃厚的財產權性質,因此英譯部分,有需再斟酌之必要,以確立「文化資產」的法律定性。
    在「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」發布施行之前,關於原住民族文化資產的保存與保護,2007年12月26日公布施行的「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」為關注此議題的第一部法律。若將「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」與施行時間重疊的「文化資產保存法」兩相對照,前者權利主體為原住民族,但保護客體方面,兩者卻近似度甚高,亦即「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」之「智慧創作」要如何與「文化資產保護法」之「無形文化資產」做一區隔,有詳加闡述之必要。
    若將權利主體限縮為原住民族,將「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」與「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」相較,雖然兩者皆以保護原住民族文化為立法宗旨,然上述疑義仍存在,亦即兩者之保護客體互有相涉,此在「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」第十三條立法理由已有明文。雖然該條文規定,「若原住民族文化資產前經原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例認定登記為傳統智慧創作者,其保存者以該智慧創作專用權人為優先。」但若原住民族文化資產之前未經原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例認定登記為傳統智慧創作者,如何區分原住民族文化成果表達與原住民族無形文化資產,此牽涉到適用何種法律規範保護之,須進一步審慎思慮。
    本文認為,同樣是以保護文化為要旨的智慧財產,其與文化資產的差異,在於智慧財產著重於作品與知識的商業開發,與標的物流通的掌控,具有「公共所有」(public domain)的特性;文化資產主以保護有形(tangible)文化,所有權保留(retention)、返還(repartition)與保存(preservation)是為主要議題。不過,由於傳統知識與文化表現亦為智慧財產之保護標的,在原住民族文化保存方面,與其區分「智慧財產」與「文化資產」,或許以「文化遺產」統攝之,更能突顯原住民族「集體所有權」(collective ownership)之概念,以及其文化之祖傳特色。
    修法建議方面,本文提出以下方案。
    第一,「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」與「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」皆以保存與維護原住民族文化為立法宗旨,但兩者的保護客體,也就是「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」之「智慧創作」與「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」之「原住民族無形文化資產」有所有相涉。此重疊之弊在「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」第十三條立法理由已有明文。本文認為,若從「智慧創作」具有再製與非專屬性之特質,「文化資產」的特質為「不可共量性」,做為兩者區別之立論基礎,亦即前者以市場價值為首要關注,後者以文物的保存、維護、鑑定與返還為主要重心,或可對兩者提出更為明確的劃分。
    第二,關於原住民族文物返還議題,在國際法方面,1995年,由聯合國教科文組織委託國際私法統一協會與海牙國際私法會議訂立「國際統一私法協會關於被盜或非法出口文物公約」,與2007年由聯合國教科文組織通過之「原住民族權利宣言」皆對該議題提出相關規定。在美國,1989年「國立美洲印地安博物館法」允許史密森學會蒐藏的原住民族文物歸還予美國原住民,此為國會首度認可美國原住民族有主張文物返還的權利。1990年「美國原住民族墓葬保護與歸還法」進一步擴及至所有受到聯邦資助之機構、博物館與大學,對於原住民族文物返還制定更詳盡之法定程序。而臺灣的「文化資產保存法」、「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」與「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」皆未對原住民族文物返還議題有所規定,宜參照上述國際法與美國相關法律,訂立相關法規。
    第三,「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」規定智慧創作者必須具備原住民族身分。雖然此項條文之立法目的係保障原住民族生計,然而,由於原住民族之族群劃分係沿自日治時期官方觀點,深具濃厚的政治色彩,該條例以「文化本質論」之視角,也就是預設各個族群有其獨特的文化,做為保護原住民族文化之立法基礎,不僅與各個族群有文化挪用之現象相去甚遠,亦易造成各族群文化僵固之弊。因此,在保護原住民族文化,藉以保障原住民族生活,與各族群文化相互激盪出更多的創意,進而增進市場潛力,如何在兩者之間求取平衡,為修法可供考慮之方向。
    第四,關於文化資產保存之程序,雖然人民或團體可以主動提報,但是文化資產的調查權須由主管機關委託才得以行使,也就是人民不得獨自行使之。而審議會的具體運作方式,由於係交由中央主管機關定之,此恐造成行政裁量權之恣意;因此,審議委員會之選任,若設置一定比例的公民席次,在審議會最後決策階段開放民眾旁聽,以及文化資產局訂立具體之公民旁聽要點,尤其是「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」,雖然對於原住民在審議會代表席次已有明文規定,但公民旁聽部分,亦應給予原住民相當的保障席次,如此可避免專家學者獨佔文化資產保存之發言權,從而使得文化資產保存議題淪為專業人士,甚至是政治競逐權力爭奪之場域。
    第五,文化資產的保存與保護,英國與美國皆採取國民信託制度,促使全民戮力參與。臺灣目前雖無國民信託制度,不過,以「信託法」第六十九條之「公益信託」實踐文化資產保存與保護,乃為可行之方,並且可參考經由「信託法」第六十九條「公益信託」所訂立之2002年公布的「文化公益信託許可監督辦法」,與2003年公布的「環境保護公益信託許可監督辦法」,作為原住民族文化資產保存立法參照。
    第六,原住民族為臺灣文化的一部分,若要落實臺灣主體性思維,認識原住民族文化乃各級學校教育之必須。「原住民族文化資產處理辦法」第十六條雖然對於原住民族文化資產的特殊性之教育推廣有所闡述,但若明確規定各級學校教導原住民族文化資產知識的每週教學時數,有助於國人理解原住民族文化與思維之殊異性。
    Taiwan’s “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act” was enacted and enforced on May 26, 1982. It has been revised for seven times since then: the first revision was announced on January 22, 1997, the second revision was announced on May 14, 1997, the third revision was announced on February 9, 2000, the fourth revision was announced on June 12, 2002, the fifth revision was announced on February 5, 2005, the sixth revision was announced on November 9, 2011, and the seventh revision was announced on July 27, 2016. In the first four revisions, only some articles are revised; the fifth one is the first comprehensive revision and the seventh one is the second comprehensive revision. The seventh revision is also the widest in revision range since the lawmaking in 1982.
    The existing “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act” does not directly involve the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples; “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” refers to “traditional religious ceremonies, music, dance, songs, sculptures, weaving, patterns, clothing, folk crafts or any other expression of the cultural achievements of indigenous peoples” and does not contain the preservation of antiquities and monuments. “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples” was made on July 18, 2017, but its object of protection overlaps with that of “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples.” Therefore, the difference between “cultural property” and “intellectual property” is the motivation of this thesis. From the perspective of comparison, this thesis started with international conventions and American Law related to cultural heritage to analyze and discuss the difference between “cultural property” and “intellectual property,” to further analyze the particularity of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, in a hope that the feasible suggestions for revising the law of cultural heritage protection of indigenous peoples can be proposed.
    The “文化資產保存法” of Taiwan is translated into the Cultural Heritage Preservation Law, where "cultural heritage" means to protect the culture that is worth preserving and handing down to the future generations with the core of the inheritance from our ancestors. “文化資產” is translated into “cultural property,” which bears the implication of the property rights, aiming to protect the right of the owner. The Cultural Heritage Preservation Law of Taiwan is characteristic of the property rights. Therefore, in terms of its English translation, it is necessary to deliberate on it again to determine its legal issue of “cultural property.”
    Prior to the announcement and enforcement of “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples,” in terms of the preservation and protection of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” enacted and enforced on December 26, 2007 is the first law paying attention to this issue. If “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” and “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act” overlapping in implementation time are compared, the former’s subject of right is indigenous peoples, but their object of protection has the high similarity, namely it is necessary to narrate in details how the “intellectual creations” of “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” is distinguished from the “intangible cultural heritage” of “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act.”
    If the subject of right is limited to the indigenous peoples, and “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” and “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples” are compared, although the purpose of legislation of the two aforesaid acts is protecting the culture of indigenous peoples, the above-mentioned doubt still exists, namely the two objects of protection overlap mutually, which has been clearly stated in Article 13 (legislation reason) in “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples.” In spite of the stipulations of this article, “where the people are recognized and registered by ‘Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples’ as traditional intellectual creations before cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, their preserver shall take the people having the exclusive use right of intellectual creations as a priority;” if the people are recognized and registered by “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” as traditional intellectual creations before cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, it is necessary to further think about carefully how to distinguish the expression of cultural achievements of indigenous peoples and intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, which involves which kind of law is applicable to protect it.
    The cultural property mainly protects the tangible culture whose main topics are the retention, repartition, and preservation of the ownership. Different from the cultural property, the intellectual property that is also committed to protecting culture focuses on the commercial development of works and knowledge, as well as the control of the circulation of the object, thus characterized by the public domain. However, as the traditional knowledge and culture are also the object of portection of the intellectual property, in terms of the cultural heritage preservation of indigenous peoples, compared with the distinction between the intellectual property and the cultural property, it may be better to distinguish the intellectual property from the cultural heritage. In this way, the concept of the collective ownership of indigenous peoples will be more highlighted, so will their culture and characteristics inherited from their ancestors.
    In terms of the suggestions for revising the law, this thesis puts forward the following programs.
    1. The purpose of legislation of “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” and “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples” is preserving and maintaining the culture of indigenous peoples, but their object of protection – “intellectual creations” of “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” and “intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples” of “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples” overlap mutually. The shortcoming of this overlapping has been stated clearly in Article 13 (legislation reason) in “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples.” This thesis believed that if the reproducibility and nonexcludability traits possessed by “intellectual creations” and the trait of incommensurability of “cultural property” are used as the argument basis to distinguish the two, the former’s top concern is market value and the latter’s core is the preservation, maintenance, authentication and return of cultural relics, or the more specific division can be proposed.
    2. In regard to the return of cultural relics of indigenous peoples, in the field of international laws, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization entrusted International Institute for the Unification of Private Law and Hague Conference on Private International Law to enact “Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects” in 1995. “Unidroit Convention” and “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” passed by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 2007 proposed the relevant stipulations on this issue. In the United States, “The National Museum of the American Indian Act of 1989” allowed the indigenous peoples’ cultural relics collected and preserved by Smithsonian Institution to be returned to American indigenous peoples, which is also the first time that the United States Congress has recognized that the Native Americans have the right to claim for the return of their cultural relics. “Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990” further expands it to all the institutions, museums and universities subsidized by the federal government and makes the more detailed legislative procedure for the return of cultural relics of Native Americans. However, Taiwan’s “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act,” “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples,” and “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” do not stipulate the issue of return of cultural relics of indigenous peoples; therefore, the making of the relevant laws and regulations should be based on the above-mentioned international laws and related American laws.
    3. “Protection Act for the Traditional Intellectual Creations of Indigenous Peoples” stipulates that the intellectual creators must have the identity of indigenous peoples. The legislative purpose of this article of law is to ensure the livelihood of indigenous peoples, but the ethnicity divides of indigenous peoples on this act follow the official view during Japanese colonial period, so it has the strong political complexion. With the perspective of the “theory of cultural essence,” this article gives tacit consent to the fact that each ethnic group has its unique culture to be used to protect the legislative foundation of protecting the culture of indigenous peoples. Thus, it not only differs greatly from the phenomenon that the cultural appropriation occurs in each ethnic group, but also easily causes the disadvantages of cultural rigidity to each ethnic group. Therefore, it is the directions of law revision to consider how to gain a balance between protecting the culture of indigenous peoples and guaranteeing indigenous peoples’ life, and gaining more creative ideas by brainstorm among various ethnic groups’ cultures, so as to further increase market potential.
    4. In regard to the procedure of cultural heritage preservation, individuals or organizations can propose and report it actively, but the investigation power of cultural heritage must be exercised upon the delegation of competent authorities, namely people’s independent execution of power is not allowed. The specific operation method of review committees is determined by central governing authority, so it may cause the arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion. In terms of the selection and appointment of members of review committees, it is proposed that a certain proportion of citizen seats is set, the public’s auditing is opened in the final decision stage of committee meetings, and Bureau of Cultural Heritage is willing to formulate the Guildlines for the public’s auditing the committee meetings, especially “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples.” Although the representative seats of indigenous peoples in review committees have been stipulated expressly, the considerable guarantee seats should also be given in the public’s auditing, so as to avoid the situation that the experts and scholars monopolize the right to speak in cultural heritage preservation, which leads to the situation that the issue of cultural heritage preservation becomes the field for which the professionals fight in political power.
    5. In terms of cultural heritage preservation and protection, the U.K. and U.S. adopt national trust system to encourage all the people to work together to participate. At present, there is no national trust system in Taiwan, but it is feasible to apply Article 69 of “Trust Law” – “Charitable Trust” to realize the cultural heritage preservation and protection. In addition, Taiwan’s legislation of cultural heritage preservation of indigenous peoples can also refer to “Regulations Supervising the Permission for Charitable Trust of Culture” announced in 2002, which was formulated by “Charitable Trust” – Article 69 of “Trust Law,” as well as “Regulations Supervising the Permission for Charitable Trust of Environmental Protection” announced in 2003.
    6. The indigenous people is a part of Taiwanese culture, so it is necessary to educate the culture of indigenous peoples in the schools at each level, so as to carry out the thought of Taiwan-centered subjectivity. The Article 16 of “Regulations of Treatment of Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples” has elaborated the educational promotion of particularity of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, but if the weekly teaching hours related to the knowledge of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples in the schools at each level are stipulated clearly, it will be beneficial for Taiwanese to understand the particularity of indigenous peoples’ culture and thought.
    Reference: 一、中文文獻

    (一) 判決

    臺灣高等法院花蓮分院103年度原上訴字第17號刑事判決。
    最高法院104年度台上字第3280號刑事判決。

    (二) 專書

    林三元(2013),原住民族傳統智慧創作專用權,初版,台北:元照。
    林會承(2011),臺灣文化資產保存史綱,初版,台北:遠流。
    林淑雅(2000),第一民族—台灣原住民族運動的憲法意義,初版,台北:前衛。

    (三) 專書論文

    李建良、林淑雅(2008),臺灣原住民族與新憲運動—觀念的提出,收於:葉俊榮、張文貞主編,新興民主的憲政改造,頁203-220,臺北:元照。
    林會承(2011),古蹟保存,收於:漢寶德、呂芳上等著,中華民國發展史‧教育與文化(下),頁621-654,臺北:國立政治大學,聯經。
    林會承(2006),臺灣新舊「文化資產保存法」的比較,收於:國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處編,2006文化資產行政國際研討會論文集,頁121-144,台北:行政院文化建設委員會。
    陳其南(2006),新文資法的時代意義,收於:國立文化資產保存研究中心籌備處編,2006文化資產行政國際研討會論文集,頁44-54,台北:行政院文化建設委員會。

    (四) 期刊論文

    李建良(2003),淺說原住民族的憲法權利—若干初探性的想法,臺灣本土法學,47期,頁126-129。
    李崇僖(2008),原住民工藝創作保護之制度研究比較—美國與澳洲之法制經驗分析,中原財經法學,21期,頁37-77。
    李蕙君(2012),雅美族傳統地下屋先民智慧結晶,原住民族季刊,2期,頁48-49。
    林會承(2014),戰後臺灣文化資產保存法制與氛圍的形塑,文資學報,8期,頁27-55。
    陳張培倫(2011),「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」中的集體權議題,臺灣原住民族學報,1卷3期,頁47-65。
    黃居正(2010),傳統智慧創作與特殊權利—評析「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護條例」,臺灣原住民族研究季刊,3卷4期,頁11-46。
    黃翔瑜(2012),古物保存法的制定及其施行困境(1930-1949),國史館館刊,32期,頁41-83。
    黃翔瑜(2012),民國以來古物保存法制之誕生背景試析(1911-1930),國史館館刊,34期,頁1-44。
    楊崇森(2007),英國國民信託之發展與各國之影響,法令月刊,58卷8期,頁16-27。
    蔡志偉(2011),從客體到主體:臺灣原住民族法制與權利發展,臺大法學論叢, 40期,頁1499-1550。
    蔣斌(1984),蘭嶼雅美族家屋宅地的成長、遷移與繼承,中央研究院民族學研究集刊,58期,頁83-117。

    (五) 學位論文

    李惠圓(2003),臺灣文化資產保存的法律分析—以私有文化建築保存為核心,國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    吳慧婷(2012),原住民古物保存機制的研究,國立臺北藝術大學建築與文化資產研究所碩士論文。
    林小燕(2006),傳統文化表達法律保護之研究,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    林佳陵(2012),原住民族神聖文化之法律化及其內涵,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所博士論文。

    (六) 研討會論文

    文化部文化資產局,文化部文化資產局「原住民族文化資產法令研究」委託計畫公開說明會,2016年4月。
    文化部,2017年全國文化會議分區論壇會議手冊, 2017年3月-6月。

    (七) 網站資源


    中華民國總統府網站,
    http://www.president.gov.tw/Page/327 (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    中華民國文化部網站,
    https://www.moc.gov.tw/(最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    王光祿違反槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例案件新聞稿,最高法院新聞稿,2016年11月17日。請參見:司法院,
    jirs.judicial.gov.tw/GNNWS/download.asp?sdMsgId=49427 (最後瀏覽日:2018年7月18日)。
    王光祿違反槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例案件開庭新聞稿,最高法院新聞稿,2017年2月9日。請參見:司法院,
    http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/GNNWS/NNWSS002.asp?id=254665 (最後瀏覽日:2018年7月18日)。
    文化部文化資產局網站,
    https://www.boch.gov.tw/(最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    文化部文化資產局臉書網站,
    https://www.facebook.com/%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E9%83%A8%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E8%B3%87%E7%94%A2%E5%B1%80-440130549422213/ (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    「文化資產保存法」2016年第七次修正重點,載於:文化部文化資產局臉書網站,
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=831307710304493&id=440130549422213 (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    文化資產保存法修正草案條文對照表,載於:中華民國行政院全球資訊網,
    http://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/2016/715100/7f43cc4d-3d42-433b-b8aa-ba54e05bd935.pdf (最後瀏覽日:2017年7月15日)。
    古物保存法,載於中華民國內政部主管法規查詢系統網站,
    http://glrs.moi.gov.tw/index.aspx(最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    行政院院會通過原住民族自治法草案,原民會:憲政里程碑,原民會新聞稿,2010年9月15日,載於:原住民族委員會全球資訊網,
    http://www.apc.gov.tw/portal/docDetail.html?CID=70BECE48437643C1&DID=3E651750B4006467A9CDA023F4DD1B78 (最後瀏覽日:2014年8月1日)。
    典藏台灣,
    http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/67/09/6b.html(最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    施正鋒,原住民族的集體權,
    http://faculty.ndhu.edu.tw/~cfshih/politics%20observation/other/20090330.html (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    原住民族傳統智慧創作保護資訊網,
    http://www.titic.apc.gov.tw/about-badge/badge-usage (最後瀏覽日:2018年6
    月15日)。
    原住民族自治法草案總說明,載於:原住民族委員會全球資訊網,
    http://www.apc.gov.tw/portal/docDetail.html?CID=70BECE48437643C1&DID=3E651750B4006467990206B4833DC47D (最後瀏覽日:2014年8月1日)。
    原住民族與臺灣政府新的夥伴關係,
    http://210.240.134.48/citing_content.asp?id=3282&keyword=%EF%BF%BDs%EF%BF%BD%D9%A6%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDY(最後瀏覽日:2014年8月1日)。
    原住民族政策白皮書,載於:中網集團,
    http://forums.chinatimes.com.tw/report/newgov/paper/520-15.htm (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    「博物館」草案,載於:中華民國文化部網站,
    http://www.moc.gov.tw/ccaImages/adminstration/282/p1-2-1.pdf (最後瀏覽日:2014年8月1日)。
    臺灣原住民族分布區域,載於:原住民族委員會全球資訊網,
    http://www.apc.gov.tw/portal/docList.html?CID=6726E5B80C8822F9 (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    臺灣原住民族權利宣言,載於:祖靈之邦,
    http://www.abohome.org.tw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=713:records-record16-713&catid=47:record15&Itemid=246 (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。

    (八) 報紙

    立院三讀《文資法》 破壞古蹟最高罰2千萬,蘋果日報,2016年7月12日,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20160712/906416/ (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    林男綺,文化多樣性公約將於2007年3月生效,聯合報,2006年12月19日。轉引自:苦勞網,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/737 (最後瀏覽日:2018年7月15日)。
    柯P:從今起文資審議會決策階段開放旁聽,蘋果日報,2015年10月15日,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20151015/712230/ (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    張宇凱,先申請主義、先發明主義;以及發明人先申請主義,北美智權報,2015年1月28日,
    http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-105.htm (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。
    強化台灣土地與歷史的連結 《文資法》通過初審,連祖先都在笑,關鍵評論,2016年5月13日,http://www.thenewslens.com/article/29410 (最後瀏覽日:2018年6月15日)。


    二、英文文獻

    (一) 案例

    Bonnichsen v. United States, 969 F. Supp. 628 (D. Or. 1997).
    Bonnichsen v. United States, 217 F. Supp.2d 1116 (D. Or. 2002).
    Bonnichsen v. United States, 367 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Roger C. B. Morton v. C. R. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974).
    United States v. Diaz, 368 F. Supp. 856 (D. Ariz. 1973).
    United States v. Diaz, 499 F. 2d 113 (9th Cir. 1974).
    United States v. Pourhassan, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D. Utah 2001).
    United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, 25 F. Cas. 695 (C.C.D. Neb. 1879) (No. 14,891).

    (二) 專書

    Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
    Canby, Jr., William C. 2009. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
    Chamberlain, Kevin. 2013. War and Cultural Heritage: An Analysis of the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Two Protocols. 2d ed. Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
    Gerstenblith, Patty. 2008. Art, Cultural Heritage, and the Law: Cases and Materials. 2d ed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    (三) 專書論文

    Gerstenblith, Patty. 2002. Cultural Significance and the Kennewick Skeleton: Some Thoughts on the Resolution of Cultural Heritage Dispute. Pp.162-197 in Claiming the Stones/Naming the Bones: Cultural Property and the Negotiation of National and Ethic Identity, edited by Elazar Barkan and Ronald Bush. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute.
    Posey, Darrell Addison. 2004. Traditional Resource Rights (TRR): De Facto Self- determination for Indigenous Peoples. Pp.155-168 in Indigenous Knowledge and Ethics: A Darrel Posey Reader, edited by Darrell Addison Posey and Kristiana Plenderleith. New York, NY: Routledge.

    (四) 期刊論文

    Bengs, Brian. 1996. Dead or Arrival? A Comparison of the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects and U.S. Property Law. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 6:503-535.
    Blake, Janet. 2000. On Defining the Cultural Heritage. The International & Comparative Law Quarterly 49:61-85.
    Carpenter, Kristen A., Sonia K. Katyal, and Angela R. Riley. 2009. In Defense of Property. Yale Law Journal 118:1022-1255.
    Crewdson, Richard. 1984. Cultural Property as the Fourth Estate?. Law Society’s Gazette 81:126-129.
    Dussias, Allison M. 2005. Kennewick Man, Kinship, and the Dying Race: The Ninth Circuit’s Assimilationist Assault on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Nebraska Law Review 84:55-161.
    Fechner, Frank G. 1998. The fundamental Aims of Cultural Property Law. International Journal of Cultural Property 7:376-394.
    Fishman, Joseph P. 2010. Locating the International Interest in Intranational Cultural Property Disputes. Yale Journal of International Law 35:347-404.
    Gerstenblith, Patty. 1995. Identity and Cultural Property: The Protection of Cultural Property in the United States. Boston University Law Review 75:559-687.
    Hapiuk, William J. Jr. 2001. Of Kitsch and Kachinas: A Critical Analysis of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. Stanford Law Review 53:1009-1075.
    Holt, H. Barry. 1985. Archaeological Preservation on Indian Lands: Conflicts and Dilemmas in Applying the National Historic Preservation Act. Environmental Law 15:413-453.
    Hutt, Sherry and C. Timothy McKeown. 1999. Control of Cultural Property as Human Rights Law. Arizona State Law Journal 31:363-389.
    Irola, Roberto. 2006. The Civil and Criminal Penalty Provisions of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. Cumberland Law Review 36:293-319.
    Kelly, Michael J. 1999. A Skeleton in the Legal Closet: The Discovery of Kennewick Man Crystalizes the Debate over Federal Law Governing Disposal of Ancient Human Remains. University of Hawaii Law Review 21:41-67.
    Kosslak, Renee M. 2000. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: The Death Knell for Scientific Study?. American Indian Law Review 24:129-151.
    Lannan, Robert W. 1998. Anthropology and Restless Spirits: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the Unresolved Issues of Prehistoric Human Remains. Harvard Environmental Law Review 22:369-439.
    Lemley, Mark A. 2005. Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding. Texas Law Review 83:1031-1075.
    Lin, Kai-Shyh. 2007. Using Intellectual Property Rights to Protect Indigenous Cultures: Critique on the Recent Development in Taiwan. Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 67:185-220.
    Merryman, John Henry. 1986. Two Ways of Thinking about Cultural Property. The American Journal of International Law 80:831-853.
    Merryman, John Henry. 2005. Cultural Property Internationalism. International Journal of Cultural Property 12:11-39.
    Meyer, David A. 1993. The 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention and Its Emergence into Customary International Law. Boston University International Law Journal 11:349-390.
    Mezey, Naomi. 2007. The Paradoxes of Cultural Property. Columbus Law Review 107:2004-2046.
    Painter-Thorne, Suzianne D. 2002. Contested Objects, Contested Meanings: Native American Grave Protection Laws and the Interpretation of Culture. U.C. Davis Law Review 35:1261-1303.
    Parsley, Jon Keith. 1993. Regulations of Counterfeit Indian Arts and Crafts: An Analysis of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. American Indian Law Review 18:487-514.
    Phelan, Marilyn. 1993. A Synopsis of the Laws Protecting Our Cultural Heritage. New England Law Review 28:63-108.
    Platzman, Steven. 1992. Objects of Controversy: The Native American Right to Repatriation. American University Law Review 41:517-558.
    Posner, Eric A. 2007. The International Protection of Cultural Property: Some Skeptical Observations. Chicago of International Law 8:213-231.
    Prott, Lyndel V., and Patrick J. O’Keefe. 1992. ‘Cultural Heritage’ or ‘Cultural Property’?. International Journal of Cultural Property 1:307-320.
    Prott, Lyndel. 2009. The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects – Ten Years On. Uniform Law Review 14:215-237.
    Radin, Margaret Jane. 1982. Property and Personhood. Stanford Law Review 34: 957-1015.
    Radin, Margaret Jane. 1987. Market-Inalienability. Harvard Law Review100:1849-1937.
    Riley, Angela R. 2002. Indian Remains, Human Rights: Reconsidering Entitlement Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 34:49-94.
    Riley, Angela R. 2005. “Straight Stealing”: Towards an Indigenous System of Cultural Property Protection. Washington Law Review 80:69-133.
    Roca-Hachem, Rochelle. 2005. UNESCO and UNIDROIT Cooperation in the Fight Against Illicit Traffic in Cultural Property. Uniform Law Review 10: 536-542.
    Trope, Jack F., and Walter R. Echo-Hawk. 1992. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History. Arizona State Law Journal 24:35-77.
    Yu, Peter K. 2008. Cultural Relics, Intellectual Property, and Intangible Heritage. Temple Law Review 81:433-506.
    Wilf, Steven. 2001. What is Property’s Fourth Estate? Cultural Property and the Fiduciary Ideal. The Connecticut Journal of International Law 16:177-182.

    (五) 其他類型英文文獻

    Babbit, Thomaira. 2011. NAGPRA as a Paradigm: The Historical Context and Meaning of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 2011. Working paper in 2011-Proceedings of the Ninth Native American Symposium. Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Durant, OK. Available at
    http://www.se.edu/nas/files/2013/03/NAS-2011-Proceedings-Babbit.pdf(last visited June 15, 2018).
    Bill of Rights, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights (last visited June 15, 2018).
    Council of Europe. Dec. 19, 1954. European Cultural Convention, European Cultural Convention,
    http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/018.htm (last visited June 15,
    2018).
    Council of Europe. Oct. 27, 2005. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society,
    http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199.htm (last visited June 15,
    2018).
    Daes, Erica-Irene A., Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and Chairperson of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. July 28, 1993. Study on the Protection of the Cultural and Intellectual Property of Indigenous Peoples, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/28. Available at
    https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f4380.html (last visited June 15, 2018).
    Ecoffey, Brandon. Apr. 1, 2013. Native Sun News: New Bill Opens Up Indian Arts and Crafts Act, Native Sun News. Available at
    http://www.indianz.com/News/2013/009120.asp (last visited June 15, 2018).
    European Union. Jan. 16, 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage,
    https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/121(last visited June 15, 2018).
    Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights. May 7, 2007,
    http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/Fribourg%20Declaration.pdf (last visited June 15,
    2018).
    Griffith, James D. May 11, 2013. Proposed Amendment to Indian Arts and Crafts Act: Opening the Non-Indians to the Market? JDGRIFFITHLAW Blog,
    https://jdgriffithlaw.wordpress.com/category/indian-arts-and-crafts-act/(last visited June 15, 2018).
    Hague Convention on (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, with Annex of Regulations. Oct. 18, 1907,
    http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/195 (last visited June 15, 2018).
    H. R. 1066, 113th Congress, 1st Session. Available at
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1066?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22113th+congress%2C+1st+session%2C+H.R.+1066%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1 (last visited June 15, 2018).
    International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. June 24, 1995. UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects,
    https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/cultural-property/1995-convention (last
    visited June 15, 2018).
    International Labour Organization. June 26, 1957. Convention Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries No. 107,
    http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100
    _ILO_CODE:C107 (last visited June 15, 2018).
    International Labour Organization. June 27, 1989. Convention Concerning Indigenous and Other Semi-Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries No. 169,
    http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169 (last visited June 15, 2018).
    International Labour Organization. 2003. ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal
    Peoples, 1989 (No. 169): A Manual. Geneva. Available at
    http://pro169.org/res/materials/en/general_resources/Manual%20on%20ILO%20Convention%20No.%20169.pdf (last visited June 15, 2018).
    National Historic Preservation Act. Oct. 15, 1966,
    https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm (last visited June 15, 2018).
    National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980. Dec. 12, 1980,
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/96/hr5496 (last visited June 15, 2018).
    The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects-An
    Overview,
    https://www.unidroit.org/about-unidroit/overview (last visited June 15, 2014).
    The Antiquities Act. June 8, 1906,
    https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/the-antiquities-act-of-1906.htm (last visited June 15, 2018).
    The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights on Indigenous Peoples. June 1993,
    http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/databases/creative_heritage/docs/mataatua.pdf (last visited June 15, 2018).
    Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact). Apr. 15, 1935,
    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/325?OpenDocument (last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. May 14, 1954. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html(last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. May 14, 1954. Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15391&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Nov. 14, 1970. UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property,
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html(last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Nov. 23, 1972. UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,
    http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Mar. 26, 1999. Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict,
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15207&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html(last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Nov. 1999. UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property,
    http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural- property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-international-code-of-ethics-for-dealers-in-cultural-property/(last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Nov. 2, 2001. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity,
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html(last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Oct. 17, 2003. UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage,
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17718&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html(last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Oct. 17, 2003. UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,
    http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00006 (last visited June 15, 2018).
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Oct. 20, 2005. UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions,
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html(last visited June 15, 2018).
    U.N. Division for Social Policy and Development Indigenous People. Oct. 2, 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf (last visited June 15, 2018).
    U.S. Department of the Interior. 1935. Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Indian Arts and Crafts Act,
    https://www.doi.gov/iacb/indian-arts-and-crafts-act-1935 (last visited June 15, 2018).
    U.S. Department of the Interior. 1990. Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Indian Arts and Crafts Act,
    http://www.iacb.doi.gov/act.html (last visited June 15, 2018).
    World Intellectual Property Organization. 2017. Protect and Promote Your Culture: A Practical Guide to Intellectual Property for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. WIPO: Geneva. Available at
    http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1048.pdf (last visited June 15, 2018).
    Zimmer, Carl. June 18, 2015. New DNA Results Show Kennewick Man Was Native American. N.Y. Times. Available at
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/science/new-dna-results-show-kennewick-man-was-native-american.html (last visited June 15, 2018).
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    97652008
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097652008
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAWID.014.2018.F10
    Appears in Collections:[法律與科技整合研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    There are no files associated with this item.



    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback