Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
The Separation of Powers and Judicial Review：An Analysis of the Grand Justice Interpretations Made in the Period of Taiwan’s Divided Government from 2000 to 2008
Chen, Wen-Cheng Ph.D.
Separation of powers
The presidential candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chen Shui-bian, won by a relative majority vote in 2000 national election, marking the first transfer of power since Taiwan established a constitutional democracy. However, DPP’s failure in a subsequent parliamentary election to secure over half of the legislative seats resulted in a "divided government" that characterized the eight years of the Chen administration (2000-2008), with executive and legislative powers being held by different political parties. It was a period of serious confrontation between the ruling and opposition camps, with President Chen himself mired in political controversies. Such matters of political disputes or administrative controversies are often best served by the Grand Justice’s interpretation of the Constitution. Against such backdrop, it is intriguing to examine how the judiciary, as a branch of government established for checks and balances, is being charged with interpreting the separation of powers among government agencies, as well as its role therein. In the face of conflict of powers among constitutional authorities, the question of how the Grand Justice draws on the institution, theories and methods in formulating interpretations to arrive at an outcome that is authoritative, legitimate and accepted by the conflicting parties, as well as the civil society, without compromising the separation of power, is the point of departure for this study. The study has found that a high proportion of the Grand Justices follow functionalism in interpreting the cases concerning separation of powers; a majority of purposive interpretations or context; “Ermachtigungsklarheit”is used as a key determinant by the majority of judgements. Based on the aforementioned findings, the study concludes that the Grand Justices of the Republic of China tend to follow judicial activism. The study proffers that the Grand Justices use recorded voting for interpreting and specify in interpretation documents the purpose and methodology being employed in the hope of achieving transparency and credibility.
|Appears in Collections:||學位論文|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.