保護⽂化資產是瞭解⾃⾝過去不可或缺的⼀部份，政府透過實施限制⼈民財
產權之法規以保護⽂化資產，但是卻未給予⼈民相對應的補償⽽導致⼈民不願意
參與⽂化資產的保存。我國⾃民國 71 年起施⾏⽂化資產保存法（以下簡稱「⽂
資法」），期間經歷多次修法，惟經過實務操作後仍發現部分條⽂與實務運作仍
有不合宜之處，因此於民國 105 年通過新版⽂資法。
本⽂即從新版⽂資法中的財產規則出發，檢視限制⼈民財產權之條⽂內容，
例如⽂化資產的指定、發現考古遺址後對⼟地所有權之限制，以及建築物被指定
為⽂化資產後所須承擔的管理維護義務。基於上述規定限制了⼈民財產權，有必
要檢討財產權損失補償體系，以實現憲法保障⼈民財產權之意旨，因此本⽂⽐較
美國的徵收(taking)制度，探討⽂資法中對⼈民財產權之限制是否已達應給予補
償之程度。根據美國憲法第五修正案，不得未經正當法律⼿續剝奪其⽣命、⾃由
或財產。⾮有公正補償，不得將私有財產徵收為公⽤。為實現憲法下的徵收條款，
美國發展出管制性徵收，指政府雖未對私⼈財產進⾏公⽤徵收，但是對它的限制
已形成了徵收效果，我國雖無管制性徵收之概念，但是此與我國⽂資法中對⼈民
財產造成限制的情形相同，爰本⽂以美國就徵收制度所累積的判例、學說作為借
鑑，檢視我國⽂化資產法中的財產規則，並發現在給予所有權⼈補償上仍有不盡
周全之處。

Protecting cultural property has always been an integral part in understanding our pasts. Governments protect these cultural properties through enacting regulations that might restrict the landowner’s property right without just compensation which causes private owners unwilling to participate in preserving cultural properties. Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (“the Act”) in Taiwan was first enacted in 1982 and has been amended several times since then. However, after years of practice the modified Act was still found lacking. Therefore, the Act was modified once again in 2016.
This article will explore the 2016 Act, examining the articles which restricted owner’s property right including those of cultural properties designation restrictions on land where archaeological sites were found and the management and maintenance obligation put upon owners after his or her building was designated. Because of the aforementioned restrictions, it is important to examine the current compensation system to achieve the purpose of protecting people’s property right under the constitution. According to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “…nor be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” To serve the purposes of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment the U.S courts have developed regulatory takings jurisprudence which applies different tests to determine whether a regulation that restricts or deprives a property owner of the right to develop use or alter his or her property constitutes a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. There is no such concept as “regulatory takings” in Taiwan. Nevertheless, the property rules in the Act causes the same effect as a regulatory taking.
Therefore, this article based the examination of the property rules of the 2016 Act upon the U.S. taking regime and found that improvements could be made so as to offer the property owner a more comprehensive protection.

壹、中文文獻
一、專書
1. 李建良、陳愛娥、陳春生、林三欽、林合民、黃啟禎，行政法入門，元照，
二版，2004年5月
二、學位論文
（依姓氏筆畫排序）
1. 陳昭榮（2011），《我國古蹟指定法制之研究》，國立中正大學法律學研究
所碩士論文
2. 葉建慈(2016)，《台灣與大陸考古遺址現地保存方式多個案之比較研究》，
東海大學建築系碩士論文
三、期刊論文
（依姓氏筆畫排序）
1. 王服清(2013)，〈論財產權特別犧牲損失補償原則在行政救濟之實踐問題----
無法律，無補償？〉《興大法學》，第14期
2. 張泰煌(1998)，〈從美國法論財產權之限制〉，《臺灣土地金融季刊》，
第135期
3. 陳立夫(2017) ，〈土地利用限制形成特別犧牲之損失補償請求權----司法院
釋字第747號解釋之意義〉，《月旦裁判時報》，第64期
四、網路資源
1. 聯合新聞網(15/02/2018)，痛心！竹市最後的四合院「太原第」，今天除夕拆
了，https://udn.com/news/story/7324/2987759
2. 自由時報（04/01/2016），北港糖廠大火，75年廠長宿舍付之一炬，
http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1560830
3. 自由時報（24/06/2016），虎尾建國二村火災禍首找到了？嫌犯一口氣認6
件，http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1741025
4. 蘋果日報（06/03/2016），鳳山海軍明德訓練班失火，碉堡局部燒毀，
https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20160306/809674/
5. 今日大話新聞（27/07/2016），台南下營百年古厝燒毀，不排除人為縱火，
https://www.times-bignews.com/content.php?t=40017
6. 自由時報（05/08/2016），北市古蹟前南菜園日式宿舍，才剛整修就燒毀，
http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/paper/1018378
7. 中時電子報（25/09/2016），北市歷史建物，原台北刑務所官舍失火，
https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20160925001949-260405
8. 中時電子報（06/03/2016），台中州文書倉庫被燒毀，將展開修復，
https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20161110005378-260402
9. 蘋果日報（30/11/2016），台中新火車站龐老舊平房驚傳火警，現場濃煙竄
天， https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20161130/1001246/
10. 台中市文化資產處網站，
http://www.tchac.taichung.gov.tw/archeology?uid=36&pid=66
11. 台灣好新聞網站(26/05/2016)，方便建商蓋大樓？國定安和遺址遭中市「狸
貓換太子」，http://www.taiwanhot.net/?p=342291
12. 中時電子報網站(07/12/2018)，鹿港再挖出清代官員古墓群，
https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20181207000663-260102
13. 華視新聞網站(25/12/2018)，鹿港珍貴古墓，學者批：彰化縣政府縱容大規
模破壞，https://news.cts.com.tw/cts/arts/201812/201812251947086.html
14. 大學報網站(21/03/2018)，老屋留下了，然後呢？居住權與文史保存的拔
河，http://www.unews.nccu.edu.tw/unews/老屋留下了，然後呢？居住權與文
史保存的拔河/
貳、英文文獻
一、專書及專書論文
（依姓氏字母排序）
1. Eugene McQuillin (2010), McQuillin municipal corporations (3d ed.). New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan
2. Norman Williams Jr. & John M. Taylor (1974), American land planning law (Rev. Ed.). Chicago, Ill. : Callaghan
3. John G. Sprankling (2012), Understanding Property Law (3d ed.). New Providence, NJ : LexisNexis
二、期刊論文
（依姓氏字母排序）
1. Albert H. Manwaring, IV (1990), American Heritage at State: The Government’s Vital Interest in Interior Landmark Designations, 25 New Eng. L. Rev. 291
2. Alvin L. Arnold, A.B., J.D., Marshall E. Tracht, M.B.A., J.D. (1994), Condemnation: Pennsylvania High Court Rules Historic Designation Not a “Taking”, 23-MAR Real Est. L. Rep. 1
3. Bradford J. White (1994), Recent Developments in Historic Preservation and Architectural Control Law, 26 Urb. Law. 777
4. Christopher T. Goodin (2007), The Role and Content of the Character of the Governmental Action Factor in a Partial Regulatory Takings Analysis, 29 U. Haw. L. Rev. 437
5. Daniel T. Cavarello (1995), From Penn Central to United Artists’ I & II: The Rise to Immunity of Historic Preservation Designation from Successful Takings Challenges, 22 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 59
6. Frank I. Michelman (1967), Property Utility and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation” Law, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1165
7. H. David Gold (2002), Relaxing the Rules: The Supreme Court’s Quest for Balance in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 29 Ecology L.Q. 137
8. H. David Gold (2002), Relaxing the Rules: The Supreme Court’s Quest for Balance in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 29 Ecology L.Q. 137
9. Jan G. Laitos (1993), The Takings Clause in America’s Industrial States After Lucas, 24 U. Tol. L. Rev. 281
10. J. David Breemer & R. S. Radford (2005), The (Less) Murky Doctrine of Investment-Backed Expectations After Palazzolo, and the Lower Courts’ Disturbing Insistence on Wallowing in the Pre-Palazzolo Muck, 34 Sw. U. L. Rev. 351
11. Joachim Beno Steinberg (2011), New York City’s Landmarks Law and the Rescission Process, N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 951
12. Melanie E. Homer (1996), Landmarking Religious Institutions: The Burden of Rehabilitation and the Loss of Religious Freedom, 28 Urb. Lawyer 327
13. Michael Lewyn (2010), Character Counts: The “Character of the Government Action” in Regulatory Takings Actions, 40 Seton Hall L. Rev. 597
14. Norbert Lee Bartochowski (2002), Takings, Archaeological Sites, and Artifacts, 8 Alb. L. Envtl. Outlook J. 134
15. Nicholas Caros (2016), Interior Landmarks Preservation and Public Access, 116 Colum. L. Rev. 1773
16. Patty Gerstenblith (2000), Protection of Cultural Heritage Found on Private Land: The Paradigm of the Miami Circle and Regulatory Takings Doctrine after Lucas, 13 St. Thomas L. Rev. 65
17. Patty Gerstenblith (1995), Identity and Cultural Property: The Protection of Cultural Property in the United States, 75 B.U. L. Rev. 559
18. Robert Meltz (2007), Takings Law Today: A Primer for the Perplexed, 34 Ecology L.Q. 307
19. Scott H. Rothstein (1994), Takings Jurisprudence Comes in from the Cold: Preserving Interiors Through Landmark Designation, 26 Conn. L. Rev. 1105