半總統制國家之比較 : 芬蘭, 法國與我國

機構典藏 > College of International Affairs > Graduate Institute of European Studies > Thesis > Item 987654321/30831

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/30831

Title:	半總統制國家之比較 : 芬蘭, 法國與我國
Other Titles:	Comparative semi-presidencies : Finland, France and R.O.C.
Authors:	潘柔澐;Pan, Jou-yun
Contributors:	淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士班謝福助;Hsieh, Fu-chu
Keywords:	半總統制;芬蘭;法國;中華民國;政治穩定;Semi-presidencies;Finland;France;R.O.C.;Political stability
Date:	2005
Issue Date:	2010-01-11 00:00:06 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	1970年，杜弗格 (Maurice Duverger)在其著作《政治制度與憲法》中提及「半總統制」一詞，對於「半總統制」的定義為：國家元首由全民普選產生、國家元首擁有相當的權力、除總統之外，尚有一個擁有行政或政府權力的總理或內閣並立，當國會不信任內閣時可以倒閣。我國在1997年修憲之後，總統改為民選，且可不經由國會同意而任命行政院長；但是，行政院長得需向國會負責，且國會擁有對行政院長的不信任權。明顯地，我國修憲後體制的與杜弗格對半總統體制的定義相符合。我國修憲後的體制與法國第五共和的體制大致相同，尤其是總統、行政首長與國會之間的關係，更可以確定我國現行的體制是半總統體制；另一方面，在檢視半總統制國家的實際運作情況後發現，部分國家如法國第五共和及芬蘭的政治穩定性高，因此，將分析此兩個國家的憲政實踐之經驗，以提供我國憲政修改的參考。在探討憲政制度及政治影響部分，是以新制度主義的研究途徑為主，藉以討論半總統體制國家法國與芬蘭，關於行政權及行政權與立法權的互動模式，並將我國的半總統體制置於此架構中，作一分析與比較。憲政體制主要是以各國憲政歷史為主軸，並討論其立憲時所考量的各因素層面；制度影響方面則是以總統、行政首長與國會三者之間的互動模式，藉以探討政治的穩定性。本文將結合各制度與非制度因素，包括：國會多數、國會多數與總統之關係、憲法實際內涵、現實環境考量、政治文化起源、總統之選舉、總統與政黨之關係、政黨體系與歷史環境，進而探討憲政實際運作的情形。在文獻回顧與分析章節中，共分為三節，主要探討半總統體制之定義與範圍，包括學術界對半總統體制之爭議與國內外學者的學術研究。在憲政發展與比較章節中，分別以芬蘭、法國與我國的憲政體制發展歷史，作一比較與分析，分別概略性的探討芬蘭與法國半總統體制的發展起源與憲法特徵，進而作為討論憲法實際內涵的背景資料；在憲政制度比較中，主要分為四大類別作分析：總統職權、選舉制度、府會關係與政黨體系，進而比較芬蘭、法國與我國之相異處。在政治穩定比較中，除了探討影響政治穩定的因素外，且將各影響因素分類為外在因素與內在因素，分別討論各因素影響政治穩定之程度與其發展。 In 1970, Maurice Duverger defined the word, ‘Semi-presidentialism’ in his book, Institutions politiques et droit constitutionnel. The definition is that the president shall be selected by citizens, own considerable power, and besides the president, there shall be a Government with administrative power Cabinet. When the Congress doesn’t trust the Government, it can bring up the resignation of the Cabinet. In 1997, the way of the presidential election in R.O.C. was changed to be selected by citizens, and the president can appoint the premier and ministers of the Cabinet without the agreement of the Congress. The Cabinet shall be responsible for the Congress, and the Congress has the right to bring up the resignation of the cabinet. Obviously, the constitutional system of R.O.C. is conformed to the definitions of Maurice Duverger’s. After the revise of the constitution, the regime of R.O.C. is almost the same as France’s, especially the relationship between the president, the Executive Yuan and the Congress. On the other hand, after examining the practical working of Semi-presidentialism, only a few countries’ politics are found stable, for example, France and Finland. Therefore, the constitutional experiences of France and Finland will be analyzed as the references for the constitutional revise in R.O.C. The interaction of the administration and the legislation of France and Finland will be discussed by taking Institutionalism as the main method, and the regime of R.O.C. will be analyzed and compared to the structures. There are lots of institutional and non-institutional factors including the relationship between the majorities of the Congress and the president, the culture of the constitution, the practical reasons, the culture of politics, the election of the president, the relationship between the president and the political parties, the system of the parties and the historical environment, and they will all be discussed in this research paper.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of European Studies] Thesis

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
	0Kb	Unknown	635	View/Open

Loading...