English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 60932/93628 (65%)
Visitors : 1252044      Online Users : 25
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU 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: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/77406

    Title: 從財產權保障論我國土地徵收法制中公共利益要件之界定
    Other Titles: A study on the public-interest requirement in eminent domain from the perspective of property right protection
    Authors: 黃兆偉;Huang, Chao-Wei
    Contributors: 淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班
    劉如慧;Liu, Ru-Huei
    Keywords: 公益;公共利益;徵收;公用徵收;公益徵收;土地徵收;強制徵收;基本權;財產權;土地法;土地徵收條例;制度性保障;區段徵收;私用徵收;public interest;public use;eminent domain;Kelo City of New London;Kelo;land expropriation;land law;property right;Land Expropriation Act;eminent domain law
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2012-06-21 06:40:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 土地徵收以剝奪人民受憲法所保障之財產權來達到所欲追求的公共利益目的,應該作為取得土地之最後手段而非優先手段,必須受到節制且有正當之理由才能發動,如何在保障私有財產權與維護社會公共利益之間取得平衡,實為重要的課題。土地徵收是我國政府取得所需用地經常採取的手段,然而近年來土地徵收履次引發民怨及社會抗爭而為社會所關注,土地徵收是否符合法定要件成為問題的關鍵。
    Property Rights are protected in the constitution. Eminent domain authority carries with it tremendous responsibility. It is the power to remove residents from their long-time homes, farms and to destroy small businesses. Thus, it is a power that must be used sparingly and for the right reasons only: “public interest”. Our government is used to taking private properties by eminent domain for public utilities or other purposes. But in recent year eminent domain attribute to many protests and attracts public’s attention in Taiwan. How to define the requirement in eminent domain is the key problems.
    “Public interest” is an abstract legal concept with considerable uncertainty. Its plain language and intent prevent the taking of property for private benefit. However, these is takings began to prolifeate as public interest is interpreted more broadly. The most significant expansion of the term came with the incorporation of “economic development” as a public interest. The definition of public use and public interests has become so broad that tax-hugry governments now possess the power to take away perfectly fine neighborhoods and give them to land-hungry private developers who promise increased tax revenue, jobs and economic development.
    The public-interest requirement in eminent domain can be defined by substantive and procedural law, and government angency should meet where a final decision to condemn property would be made. Foreign countries had the same problems with eminent domain abuse. Since the U.S. Supereme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, many states have passed new laws aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain for private use. States are free to enact legislation that restricts the power of eminent domain, narrowling their law’s definitions of public use. The experience of foreign country’s legal principles and cases may be the requirements of a reference for Land Expropriation Act of Taiwan.
    Appears in Collections:[Graduate Institute & Department of Public Administration] Thesis

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

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