 |
English
|
正體中文
|
简体中文
|
Post-Print筆數 : 27 |
Items with full text/Total items : 109952/140903 (78%)
Visitors : 46027186
Online Users : 970
|
|
|
Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/129839
|
| Title: | 民主國家能否撤銷公民的國籍？——回應郭祐輑的〈撤銷公民國籍、居住安全與民主國家）
Are Democratic States Permitted to Denationalize Citizens? In Reply to Prof. Yuchun Kuo’s “Denationalization, Residential Security, and Democracies” |
| Authors: | 葉浩
YEH, HAO |
| Contributors: | 政治系 |
| Keywords: | 公民身分;民主;居住安全;撤銷國籍;雙重國籍
citizenship;democracy;residential security;denationalization;dual citizenship |
| Date: | 2018-08 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-05-26 10:54:01 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 加拿大學者Patti Lenard 在2018 年的《美國政治科學評論》（American Political Science Review）期刊中發表文章反對民主國家擁有撤銷公民國籍的權利，引起國內政治學者郭祐輑的關注，並於本刊撰寫了〈撤銷公民國籍、居住安全與民主國家〉一文做為回應。一方面，郭祐輑直指Lenard 的論證在強調「撤銷國籍」不必然等同「驅逐出境」時，論證上卻又依賴兩者存在必然關聯，因此自我矛盾；另一方面，郭祐輑也指出，Lenard 的主要依據，亦即國家若有撤銷公民國籍的權利，恐有危及公民的居住安全之虞，並非反對撤銷公民國籍的最好理由，因為，撤銷公民的國籍不必然危及公民的居住安全，特別當公民擁有雙重國籍時；甚至，人們對於居住安全的關注反而可做為撤銷某些公民（如恐怖分子）國籍的理由才是。本文意在指出，郭祐輑與Lenard 分別從社群與個人的角度出發來看待此一議題，因此存在立場的根本差異，但Lenard 的論點並不涉及自我矛盾；此外，郭祐輑理解的「居住安全」亦與Leanrd 提出的界定完全不同，因此並未實質地反駁Lenard 的論點，反而有各說各話的狀況。是故，雖然郭祐輑的文章意圖從Lenard 的每一個論點加以提出反駁，但並未成功。
As a reply to Patti Lenard’s well-received article “Democratic Citizenship and Denationalizaiton” published 2018 in American Political Science Review, Yuchun Kuo offers a thorough criticism in in his article “Democratization, Residential Security, and Democracies” published in this journal. According to the latter, Lenard’s argument is flawed primarily for linking “denationalization” and “deportation” to make his case, while at the same time acknowledging that these two are not necessarily connected – hence self-contradiction. On the other hand, Kuo points out that the idea of “residential security” upon which Lenard’s argument is based could not serve as a reason to revoke citizenship, but rather it may constitute a ground for denationalization in general, and in particular with regard to those who have dual nationality. This article argues that although Lenard and Kuo approach this issue from diametrically opposite perspectives, that is, methodologically as well as substantially from individualist and communitarian positions respectively, Lenard’s claim is not flawed as a case of self-contradiction. What is more, they understand “residential security” so different that Kuo seems to be talking at crosspurposes with Lenard. For this reason, Kuo’s reply, although at some points brilliant in its own right, has not successfully refuted Lenard’s argumentation. |
| Relation: | 民主與治理, Vol.5, No.2, pp.65-74 |
| Data Type: | article |
| DOI 連結: | https://doi.org/10.3966/2311505X2018080502003 |
| DOI: | 10.3966/2311505X2018080502003 |
| Appears in Collections: | [政治學系] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | | 0Kb | HTML2 | 288 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement1.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。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.
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。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(
nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
