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。 公共利益係一個抽象之不確定法律概念，其具備多元化的觀點及內涵還有充分彈性之特色足以保證能夠因應社會及經濟變化。法律明文規定徵收必須為了公益，排除了為了私益而徵收，然而公益作為土地徵收之要件卻也因為公益概念容易擴張解釋，造成土地徵收之需地適格事業膨脹的現象。綜觀我國目前的土地徵收法制，可發現我國授權土地徵收之範圍相當廣泛，許多不具備公益目的之事業亦可宣稱「追求經濟發展符合公益」為由申請徵收私有土地。公益概念擴張解釋之下，導致政府可以輕易透過徵收取得私有土地供另一私人開發。土地徵收遭到濫用亦反映出近年政府為了促進及追求經濟發展，以及增加稅收與就業機會，鼓勵大型企業財團投資開發，滿足業者設廠所需土地之現象。 土地徵收之公益要件可以分別從實體及程序上加以界定，並且重視被徵收人的意見，讓被徵收人參與徵收決定程序，才能真正實現徵收土地所欲追求之公共利益目標。國外於近年來也有類似我國的濫用徵收情形，而外國法制也對此作出因應與調整，例如美國聯邦最高法院凱洛案後引發的各州徵收法改革中透過立法限縮公用之範圍等方式，限制土地徵收權力以免遭到濫用。國外判決及立法例之經驗可供我國法制之參考，作為往後立法或解釋之依據。 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.