English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 49064/83169 (59%)
造訪人次 : 6959811      線上人數 : 52
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧:
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號",以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋,建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位,可獲得較完整資料
  • 進階搜尋
    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/30994


    題名: The road to sophistry: the recent transformation of the legal precept of equality in American jurisprudence
    其他題名: 通往詭辯之路:論美國法律中平等觀念之轉變
    作者: 汝明麗;Ju, Elma Ming-li
    貢獻者: 淡江大學美國研究所博士班
    崔馬吉;Trimarchi, Anthony G.
    關鍵詞: 平等;文化辯護;自由放任主義;種族優待措施;Equality;Cultural Defense;Libertarianism;Affirmative Action
    日期: 2007
    上傳時間: 2010-01-11 00:07:39 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 美國於內戰結束後,通過憲法第14條修正案,其中之平等保護條款將平等概念首度納入美國憲法,而美國司法部門則自此承擔起詮釋平等作為一法律概念之責任。本篇論文從自由放任主義的角度,檢視美國法庭是否做到對個人法律權利之保障,確使個人的平等權利免於遭受其他個人、團體或政府之不當干預。
    本篇論文認為美國法庭在此方面之判決與論述前後不一,充斥詭辯狡詞。舉例而言,美國最高法院堅持所謂政治/公民與社會平等之分野,對於非裔美人之天賦人權於19世紀末至20世紀上半頁遭受侵害之情事視若無睹。而自Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)樹立之「隔離但平等」的法律原則,更是直到Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 才被判定違反憲法平等保護的原則。
    美國司法部門在做出反隔離判決後,終於回歸前述自由放任主義所認定之平等原則。惟最高法院旋即在處理種族優待措施案件時,再度展開言詞詭辯。在只問目的,不論手段的情況下,美國法庭以平等之名,核可了種族差別待遇。
    然而平等做為一法律概念之轉變,係於1980年代開始邁向另一巔峰。若干美國法庭開始接受刑事案件中被告援引「文化辯護」之概念,強調個人行為深受其文化背景形塑的影響,故於外國文化中成長之個人即便在美國境內違反美國法律,亦不應要求其擔負全責。「文化辯護」支持者認為,依據平等保護原則,法庭於審理此等案件時,應將個人隸屬之特定文化族群視為關鍵因素,列入考量。
    本篇論文藉由對平等保護判例與「文化辯護」案件之審視與分析,證明了美國法律中的平等觀念確實已經出現轉變,且對於美國民族特性與凝聚力帶來深遠之負面衝擊。
    The rhetoric of equality was formally incorporated into the United States Constitution following the end of the Civil War (1861-1865), specifically manifested in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judiciary has since then taken up the responsibility of interpreting the concept of equality as a legal precept. This dissertation has chosen to examine the American judiciary’s performance in this regard through a libertarian lens. The inquiry focuses on whether the American courts have protected individual rights guaranteed by law, and ensured that such equality for individuals remain free from undue interferences from other individuals, groups, or government.
    The dissertation has found American courts’ performance to be marked by inconsistency and sophistry. For example, by insisting on the distinction between political/civil, and social equality, the Federal Supreme Court turned a blind eye to violations of black Americans’ rights to life, liberty and property during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. The doctrine of separate but equal, set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), stood effective until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruled that racial segregation was a denial of the equal protection of the laws.
    The desegregation decision put the American judiciary back to the right track of promoting the aforesaid libertarian conception of equality, but before long the Supreme Court deviated again to exercises of sophistry when dealing with affirmative action cases. In the name of equality, the judiciary endorsed racial classifications, believing that the noble end justified the suspect means.
    However, the transformation of the legal precept of equality was not completely consummated until some of the American courts began to accept the invocation of cultural defense in the 1980s. Cultural defense claims that a person’s behavior is dictated by his or her cultural background to such an extent that those brought up in a foreign culture should not be held fully accountable for their actions which are found to violate American laws. Such group membership is seen as a critical factor that must be taken into consideration if the principles of equality and individualized justice are to be honored.
    This dissertation, through reviews and analyses of equal protection jurisprudence and cultural defense cases, has demonstrated that the transformation, subtle as it is, has indeed been taking place, and has already brought about adverse, far-reaching impact on both American character and American unity.
    顯示於類別:[美國研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    0KbUnknown302檢視/開啟

    在機構典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

    TAIR相關文章

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - 回饋