Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/150185
|
| Title: | 從美台司法實務論台灣導入法庭之友程序之研究
A Study on the Implementation of the Amicus Curiae Procedure in Taiwan From the Perspective of U.S. and Taiwan Judicial Practice |
| Authors: | 林建佑
Lin, Chien-Yu |
| Contributors: | 熊誦梅
王立達
Hsiung, Sung-Mei
Wang, Li-Dar
林建佑
Lin, Chien-Yu |
| Keywords: | 法庭之友
美國聯邦最高法院
美國聯邦最高法院審理規則
憲法訴訟法
智慧財產案件審理法
Amicus Curiae
Supreme Court of the United States
Rules of the Supreme Court
Constitutional Court Procedure Act
Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-03-01 13:47:48 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究目的在於探討美國法庭之友制度導入我國的程序運作之研究。以三個面向進行論述：一、美國法庭之友制度的沿革、發展及定位，二、比較美國與我國的法庭之友制度與實務，三、研析法庭之友制度的必要性與影響層面。依據所蒐集的資料進行分析比較後發現：法庭之友制度在美國的司法程序的定位，非全然符合「法庭之友」原來的目的，或有變成為「利益團體遊說法官採取特定見解」的疑慮。惟即便如此，美國法庭之友的發展經驗仍值得我國法院借鏡，像是其審理規則如何因應與處理大量書狀，如何辦理有關貢獻者資訊之揭露等等，我國司法當局於引進法庭之友制度後，仍應該持續關注國內外法庭之友制度的發展並持續進行制度改善，以形成適切於台灣司法程序的法庭之友制度。
The purpose of this study is to investigate the operation of the amicus curiae system in Taiwan after its introduction from the United States. The study is structured around three main aspects: （1） the historical development and positioning of the amicus curiae system in the United States, （2） a comparative analysis of the amicus curiae systems and practices in the United States and Taiwan, and （3） an analysis of the necessity and impact of the amicus curiae system. Based on the data collected and analyzed, it has been found that the positioning of the amicus curiae system in the United States' judicial process does not entirely align with the original purpose of "friends of the court," and there are concerns that it may have turned into a means of "lobbying judges to adopt specific viewpoints by interest groups". However, even with these concerns, the development experience of the amicus curiae system in the United States is still worth considering for Taiwanese courts, such as how its court rules address and manage a large volume of pleadings and how it handles the disclosure of contributor information. Therefore, even after the introduction of the amicus curiae system in Taiwan's judicial system, it is essential for judicial authorities to continue monitoring the development of amicus curiae systems both domestically and internationally and to continually improve the system to make it suitable for Taiwan's judicial procedures. |
| Reference: | 一、中文文獻
1. 期刊
（1）王兆鵬（2000）。附帶扣押、另案扣押與一目瞭然法則。律師雜誌，第255期，頁47-59。
（2）林超駿（2014）。初論法庭之友與美國最高法院──兼評大審法草案相關規定。月旦法學雜誌，第227期，198-231頁。
（3）金孟華（2013）。美國「法庭之友」制度簡介。司法改革雜誌，第93期，頁42-43。
（4）陳立虎（2004）。法庭之友陳述在WTO爭端解決機制中的可接受性。法學家，第3期，頁155-160。
（5）陳奕之（2016）。美國專利耗盡恐將生變——深入剖析Lexmark案法院之友意見與CAFC全院聯席審理過程。專利師，第24期，10-119頁。
（6）趙海峰、高立忠（2007）。論國際私法程序中的法庭之友制度。比較法研究，第3期，頁68-79。
（7）劉定基（2021）。法庭之友的制度設計──兼論其與鑑定人制度的異同。臺北大學法學論叢，第117期，頁1-54。
2. 研討會論文
（1）蘇彥圖（2019/12/7）。美國聯邦最高法院審理流程概論，發表於司法院大法官108年度學術研討會，法官學院，1-34頁。
3. 網路資料
（1）湯文章，【大法官開庭】法庭之友說的是專家意見或公開遊說？，讀取自2022年8月18日，ETtoday法律新聞 | ETtoday新聞雲https://www.ettoday.net/news/20190102/1345817.htm。
（2）鍾泓良，智慧財產案件審理法初審通過，「法庭之友」不予增訂，讀取自2023年1月15日，udn |產經 |財經焦點
https://udn.com/news/story/7238/6866270。
（3）聲請擔任法庭之友指引，讀取自2023年6月20日，憲法法庭網站https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=5206。
二、外文文獻
1. 期刊
（1）Abram Chayes.（1976）. The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation. Harv. L. Rev.,89, 1281-1316.
（2）Anderson, H.A.（2015）. Frenemies of the Court: The Many Faces of Amicus Curiae. U. Ric. L. Rev., 49, 361-416.
（3）Anzhelika Krusian, Iryna Zhytotovska, Volodymyr Mikhalov, Kseniia Kuli Ivanchenko.（2019）. Amicus Curiae Institute in the Constitutional Process. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics,7（45）, 2040-2046.
（4）Covey Jr. ,F.M. （1959）. Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court. DePaul L. Rev., 91（1）, 30-37.
（5）Eric De Brabandere.（2011）. NGOs and the "Public Interest": The Legality and Rationale of Amicus Curiae Interventions in International Economic and Investment Disputes. Chicago Journal of International Law, 12（1）, 85-113.
（6）Fowler V. Harper & Edwin D. Etherington.（1953）. Lobbyists before the Court. U. Pennsylvania L. Rev., 101, 1172-1177.
（7）Helen A. Anderson.（2006）. Legal Doubletalk and the Concern with Positional Conflicts: A “Foolish Consistency”?. Penn. St. L. Rev.,111, 1-54.
（8）James F. Spriggs, II and Paul J. Wahlbeck.（1997）. Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly ,50（2）, 365-386.
（9）Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier & Dino P. Christenson.（2014）. The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks. Social Network, 36, 82-96.
（10）Joseph Kearney, Thomas Merrill.（2000）. The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court. U. Pa. L. Rev.,148, 743-855.
（11）Katia Fach Gómez.（2010）. Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest. Fordham International Law Journal, 35（2）, 510-564.
（12）Linda Sandstrom Simard.（2008）. An Empirical Study of Amici Curiae in Federal Court: A Fine Balance of Access, Efficiency, and Adversarial. Rev. Litig.,27,1.
（13）Michael K. Lowman.（1991）. The Litigating Amicus Curiae: When Does the Party Begin after the Friends Leave. Am. U. L. Rev.,41, 1243-1299.
（14）Paul D. Carrington.（2009）. Justice on Appeal in Criminal Cases: A Twentieth-Century Perspective. Marq. L. Rev.,93, 459-475.
（15）Paul M. Collins （2004）. Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation. Law & Society Review, 38（4）, 807-832.
（16）Paul M. Collins.（2007）. Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 60（1）, 55-70.
（17）Paul M. Collins, Jr., Pamela C. Corley & Jesse Hamner. （2015）. The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content. Law & Society Review, 49（4）, 917-944.
（18）S. Chandra Mohan.（2010）. The Amicus Curiae: Friends No More? Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 352-374.
（19）Samuel Krislov. （1963）. The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy. Yale L. J.,72, 694-721.
（20）Shai Farber.（2019）. The Amicus Curiae Phenomenon – Theory, Causes and Meanings. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 29（1）, 1-62.
2. WTO文件
（1）United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body. WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R（Oct. 12, 1998）.
（2）European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products, Report of the Appellate Body. WTO Doc. WT/DS135/AB/R（March 12, 2001）.
3. 網路資料
（1）Harris, S.S.（2019）, MEMORANDUM TO THOSE INTENDING TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES., Retrieved July 12 2022, from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/AmicusGuide2019.pdf
（2）Harris, S.S.（2023）, MEMORANDUM TO THOSE INTENDING TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES., Retrieved July 12 2023, from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/AmicusGuide2023.pdf
（3）Franze, A. J., & Anderson, R. R.（2020）. Amicus Curiae at the Supreme Court: Last Term and the Decade in Review. The national law journal, Retrieved July 12 2023, from: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2020/11/amicus-curiae-at-the-supreme-court |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
106961032 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106961032 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
