研究生: |
張容珉 Chang, Jung-Min |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
全球治理與規範制定之可課責性研究 – 以OECD為例 OECD as a Global Ruler: Accountability Challenges |
指導教授: |
林勤富
Lin, Ching-Fu 劉漢威 Liu, Han-Wei |
口試委員: |
彭心儀
Peng, Shin-Yi 陳在方 Chen, Tsai-Fang |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
科技管理學院 - 科技法律研究所 Institute of Law for Science and Technology |
論文出版年: | 2017 |
畢業學年度: | 105 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 153 |
中文關鍵詞: | 全球治理 、可課責性 、經濟合作暨發展組織 、非正式國際規範制定 、國際學生評量計畫 、稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉計畫 |
外文關鍵詞: | Global Governance, Accountability, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, Informal International Lawmaking, Programme for International Student Assessment, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting |
相關次數: | 點閱:3 下載:0 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
當代之全球秩序,基於全球高度相互依賴之現實,可能跳脫傳統國際公法之互動模式,申言之,「跨國」之互動與合作,已不限於國家作為主體,為因應全球管制之需求,而具有「去中心化」之性質,在傳統國際法以國家為主體之框架外,更出現多樣之參與者,如非政府組織、私人企業等。再者,跨國層級之規範制定方式,跳脫傳統國際公法之限制,不僅包含國際法之制定,如條約或習慣法等傳統上具法律拘束力者;尚包含其他規範制定形式,不具拘束力之軟法,例如OECD所為之各項金融管制建議,被許多國內之管制者所採用,實質影響各國家及經濟體之金融政策。
另一方面,由跨國政府間組成之新型態的跨政府組織網絡,通過交換管制資訊、分享國內實踐經驗,達成管制上之共識,隨後可能於各國國內執行,此類跨國網絡亦作為當代不可忽視之管制趨勢。此二者影響之路徑,雖已由國際法學者進行研究分析,惟仍被傳統國際公法之面紗所覆蓋,留有許多可供操作之空間,更引發可課責性之問題,亟待解決,而我國相關研究亦相對缺乏。
我國基於特殊之歷史背景,與國際政治現實,並未被世界各國承認主權國家之地位,而於「國際」活動時常受限。惟新的全球秩序,或許可提供我國不同的參與跨國規範制定之方式。本論文之問題意識,起於我國將國際組織所制定之規範納入我國執行,是否符合可課責性規範之疑問?又可課責性可分為跨國層次及國內層次,於跨國層次上,雖然兩者高度關聯而難以區分。在跨國層次上,本論文試圖整理當代全球治理框架下,國際上重要研究文獻所提出之互動模式或合作機制,並以「非正式國際規範制定」理論作為研究途徑。而為進一步探討跨國規範制定對於國內規範制定之影響,以我國參與經濟合作暨發展組織下之「國際學生評量計畫」及「稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉計畫」二案例,分析此二案例對於我國規範制定之改變。
對於可課責性之提升,除了「良好治理」概念下之公開透明、審查機制,本論文之結論包括需視個別議題性質之不同,以發展不同之可課責性機制;需同時重視內部及外部利害關係人;最後係注意可課責性於國內及跨國層級之互補特性。
Using two programs under Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as case studies, this thesis tries to examine the accountability issues raised by both global and domestic lawmaking processes, especially from the trend of global governance. The emergence of global governance and its relevant research are based on the vast increase of transnational cooperation, which is to address the interdependence of the globalized world in a variety of fields. To enhance the efficiency in transnational activities, not only states but other multi-actors have participated in the lawmaking processes in the global level, such as non-governmental organisations, corporations and so on. Also, the non-binding agreements or guidelines made by international organisations sometimes are used as a powerful way to change the national policies of countries. As the traditional international law is not capable of answering the accountability deficits in novel lawmaking processes, international scholars and lawyers began to develop their theories to examine the phenomena of global governance, moreover, to give practical methods for accountability problems.
This article first introduces the background of the emergence of global governance and its relevant legal theories, including 'Transnational Governmental Networks', 'Global Administrative Law' and 'Informal International Lawmaking'(IN-LAW). Choosing IN-LAW as a research approach, this article then uses the approach to explore the structure and the general lawmaking process in OECD. Finally, this thesis examines how the outcome of transnational lawmaking effected Taiwan's domestic policy-making, through linking the research approach and the two cases under OECD together.
In conclusion, the case study shows the requirements of accountability are different from case to case. Therefore, the design of the accountability mechanisms should be adjusted based on individual cases. To participate the transnational lawmaking processes, Taiwan should find the origins of decision-making process in each field and get involved at an early stage.
一、中文文獻
(一)專書
李惠宗(2010),行政法要義,元照,頁426。
李顯峰、鍾騏、謝德宗(2015),我國因應國際反避稅趨勢執行跨國資訊交換之研究,財政部104年度委託研究期末報告(編號:RG10501-0296 ),頁III。
林文謙(2013),環境治理:臭氧層耗損與全球暖化,台北市,一版,頁44。
姜皇池(2006)。國際公法導論,台北市,一版,頁1。
陳春山(2007),2020全球趨勢與全球治理,台北,初版,頁155。
黃清德(2011),《科技定位追蹤監視與基本人權保障》,台灣:元照,頁12。
蔣德仁(2013),PISA國際學生能力評量計畫概論,五南,一版一刷。
臺灣 PISA國家研究中心(2014),臺灣 PISA 2012 精簡報告,頁6。
(二)期刊論文
于安(2015),〈全球行政法的进路——基于两篇经典文献的诠释〉,《行政法学研究》第6期。
林家榮(2006),〈我國參與經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)農業活動之現況與展望〉,《農政與農情》172期,95年10月,可見於http://www.coa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=11926&print=Y。
林春元(2013),〈法院在氣候變遷規範競爭與政治角力中的角色與策略:從歐洲法院民航排放權交易指令判決談起〉,《國立台灣大學法學論叢》,第42卷,第4期。頁1179。
吳書銘(2008),OECD組織PISA評量對我國教育的啟示與反思,網路社會學通訊期刊,
第75期,見http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/75/index.htm
姚金菊(2015),全球行政法的兴起:背景、成因与现状,《环球法律评论》2015年第4期,頁109-120。
溫俐婷(2016),良好法規實務之發展現況與展望,國土及公共治理季刊,第三期,第四卷,2016年9月,頁132。
徐耀浤、詹世榕(2006),〈從國際法觀點簡析 OECD 多國企業指導綱領之法律性質與我國之因應之思維〉,《應用倫理研究通訊》,第40期,頁51-59。
袁鶴齡(2003),〈全球治理與合作:論其策略與困境〉,《全球政治評論》第4期,頁30。
(三)網路文獻
PISA/ PISA簡介,臺灣2015 PISA 國家研究中心,http://pisa2015.nctu.edu.tw/pisa/index.php/tw/pisaabout/8-pisa-interduction。
大考國文大變革!題型PISA化 恐和數學一樣難,https://udn.com/news/story/1/2162810
大考國文PISA化,https://udn.com/news/story/6886/2162942
北大軟法網,http://www.pkusoftlaw.com/contents/914/6019.html
台北市教師會「基北區特色招生考試規劃」問卷結果發表,
http://www.tta.tp.edu.tw/1_news/upload/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%A8%BF-0415%E7%89%B9%E6%8B%9B%E8%A8%98%E8%80%85%E6%9C%83.pdf
中華民國全國教師會新聞稿,有關〞PISA 台灣成績結果〞全教會評析新聞稿http://www.spps.tp.edu.tw/tweb/%E6%95%99%E5%B8%AB%E6%9C%83%E7%AC%AC13%E5%B1%86/news/961206.htm
李國偉(2013),升學大餐不宜吃PISA,科學人雜誌6月第136期,電子版見:http://pisa.nutn.edu.tw/download/news/201312_03.pdf
行政院主計處「國民幸福指數」新聞稿,http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Attachment/33715562571.pdf
行政院主計處「國民幸福指數」簡報會議裁示事項,https://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=33410&ctNode=6052&mp=4
行政院公平交易委員會,我國加入經濟合作發展組織(OECD)競爭委員會觀察員案,
http://web.wtocenter.org.tw/Page.aspx?pid=112053&nid=13033
金融監督管理委員會網站,http://law.fsc.gov.tw/law/SearchAllResultList.aspx?KeyWord=FATF&Cur=N
資誠聯合會計師事務所,反避稅立法精華手冊,http://www.pwc.tw/zh/publications/publ-feature-tax/cfc-and-pem.html
綠色和平網站,http://www.greenpeace.org/taiwan/zh/aboutus/ships/rainbow-warrior
運用全球法理學,實現通姦除罪及同性婚姻合法化,https://www.thenewslens.com/article/19172
博愛座-在「讓座」與「不讓座」之間,
http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20161028/977225/
蕃薯藤世界地圖輯新聞,http://world.yam.com/post.php?id=2995
經濟部經貿資訊網,http://www.trade.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeID=251&pid=328297
經濟部國際貿易局(2016),OECD業務簡介,頁16。http://www.trade.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeID=251
經濟部國際貿易局經貿資訊網http://www.trade.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeID=251&pid=328296&dl_DateRange=all&txt_SD=&txt_ED=&txt_Keyword=&Pageid=0
經濟部標準檢驗局,企業參與國際標準化組織指引,http://www.bsmi.gov.tw/wSite/public/Data/f1352964403472.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2017/3/5)。
楊鎮宇(2013),丁亞雯:「不會出一份大多數學生不會的題本」,親子天下雜誌,見
https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5047996-%E4%B8%81%E4%BA%9E%E9%9B%AF%EF%BC%9A%E3%80%8C%E4%B8%8D%E6%9C%83%E5%87%BA%E4%B8%80%E4%BB%BD%E5%A4%A7%E5%A4%9A%E6%95%B8%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E4%B8%8D%E6%9C%83%E7%9A%84%E9%A1%8C%E6%9C%AC%E3%80%8D/
鄭天授(2003),我國爭取參與經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)科技委員會,立法院第五屆第三會期科技及資訊委員會第十七次全體委員會議報告。
勤業眾信網站整理〈各國政府因應措施〉https://www2.deloitte.com/tw/tc/pages/tax/articles/beps-country-scorecards.html
勤業眾信聯合會計師事務所稅務部,全球稅務資訊交換趨勢對我國金融業之影響, https://www2.deloitte.com/tw/tc/pages/tax/articles/newsletter16-03-40.html
臺北市十二年國民基本教育資訊網https://12basic.tp.edu.tw/faq.jsp
(四)出國報告
包文凱,黃燕雯,參加經濟合作暨發展組織「租稅及發展專責小組會議」暨「第5屆移轉訂價全球論壇會議」會議報告(報告編號:C10501368),財政部賦稅署,頁52。
宋秀玲、鍾素華、吳珍菊、林燕瑜(2016),參加經濟合作暨發展組織 「租稅及發展專責小組會議」暨「第5屆移轉訂價全球論壇會議」會議報告,財政部出國報告(報告編號:C10500255),頁53。
沈翠琴(2015),中區國稅局,移轉訂價制度及申報揭露規定,頁17,
https://www.ntbca.gov.tw/etwmain/front/ETW119/downLoadMaterial?workshopAttachedId=150834b075900000dd5bb3e1d2528bc7
林福來(2006),代表我國參加IEA Standing Committee 會議及PISA Governing Board(報告編號:C09501096),行政院國家科學委員出國報告,頁2。
林煥祥、劉聖忠、林素微、李暉(2008),臺灣參加 PISA 2006 成果報告(計畫編號:NSC 95-2522-S-026-002),頁6。
吳蓮英、宋秀玲、黃瓈緯(2008),參加2008年經濟合作暨發展組織「稅約範本50週年特別會議」暨「OECD秘書處與非會員經濟體會議」會議報告(報告編號:C09702758),財政部賦稅署,頁26。
陳明蕾(2016),第四十一屆PISA 國家代表人會議出國報告,國家教育研究院出國報告(報告編號:C10501573),頁1。
黃燕雯(2017),參加經濟合作暨發展組織舉辦「移轉訂價文據及國別報告」國際租稅研討會報告(報告編號:C10600287),財政部賦稅署,頁5。
彭麗春、陳寶玲(2015),參加PISA 第40 次Governing Board會議報告(報告編號:C10403107),科技部,頁7。
二、英文文獻
(一)專書
Alan Boyle & Christine Chinkin, The Making of International Law 20, 21 (2007).
Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order 1 (2009).
Terry MacDonald, From Nation-States to 'Stakeholder' Commuities, in Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation Beyond Liberal States 84, 95 (2008).
(二)期刊論文
Alexander Somek, The Concept of ‘law’: in Global Administrative Law: A Reply to Benedict Kingsbury. 20(4) Eur. J. Int'l. L. 985, 990 (2010).
Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Accountability of Government Networks, 8(2) Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 347, 360 (2001).
Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Real New World Order, 76 Foreign AFF. 183, 196 (1997).
Armin von Bogdandy & Matthias Goldmann, The Exercise of International Public Authority through National Policy Assessment: The OECD’s PISA Policy as a Paradigm for a New International Standard Instrument, 5 Int’l Org. L. Rev. 241, 244 (2008).
Armin von Bogdandy et al., Developing the Publicness of Public International Law: Towards a Legal Framework for Global Governance Activities, 9 Ger. L. J. 1375, 1375 (2008).
B.S. Chimni, Capitalism, Imperialism, and International Law in the Twenty-First Century. 14(17) Or. Rev. Int'l L. 17. 17 (2012)
Benedict Kingsbury et al, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law & Contemp. Probs. 15, 15-17 (2005).
Benedict Kingsbury, The Concept of ‘Law’ in Global Administrative Law, 20 (1) Eur. J. Int'l . 23, 57 (2009).
Bermann, George A., Regulatory Cooperation with Counterpart gencies Abroad; the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Experience, Law & Pol'y in International Business, 23(3) 669, 669-781.
Carol Harlow, Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values, 17(1) Eur. J. Int'L. L.187, 187 (2006).
Ching-Fu Lin, Public-Private Regime Interactions in Global Food Safety Governance, 69(2) FDLJ. 143, 144 (2014).
H. David Rosenbloom et al., The Unruly World of Tax: A Proposal for an Internation Tax Cooperation Forum, 15 Fla. Tax Rev. 57 (2014).
Han-Wei Liu, International Standards in Flux: A Balkanized ICT Standard-setting Paradigm and Its Implications for the WTO, 17 (3) J. Int'l Econ. L. 551, 577 (2014).
James Salzman, Decentralized Administrative Law in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 68 (3) & (4) L. & Contemp. Probs. 189, 191 (2005).
Joost Pauwelyn et al., Stagnation and Dynamics in International Lawmaking, 25 Eur. J. Int'l . 733, 740 (2014).
Joost Pauwelyn, Rethinking Stakeholder Participation in International Governance: Research Plan 1 (2014) (unpublished manuscript).
Julia Black, Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes, 2(2) Reg & Pol'Y 137, 140 (2008).
Kenneth W. Abbott et al., The Concept of Legalization, 54(3) Int'l Org. 401, 401-419 (2000).
Lawrence S. Finkelstein, What is Global Governance, 1(3) Global Governance 367, 369 (1995).
Mark Bovens, Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework, 13(4) Eur. L. J. 447, 450 (2007).
Nico Krisch & Benedict Kinsbury, Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order, 17(1) Eur. J. Int'l. L. 1, 1 (2006).
Ramses A. Wessel, Informal International Law-Making as a New Form of World Legislation, 8 Int’l Org. L. Rev. 253, 254 (2011).
Rianne Mahon & Stephen McBride, Standardizing and disseminating knowledge: The role of the OECD in global governance, 1(1) Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev. 83, 84 (2009).
Sam Sellar & Bob Lingard, The OECD and Global Governance in Education, Journal of Education Policy. 710, 723 (2013).
Tobias Jakobi, Regulating regulation? The regulatory policy of the OECD 1, 4 (2012).
(三)專書論文
Abraham Newman & David T. Zaring, Regulatory Networks: Power, Legitimacy, and Compliance, in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art 244, 254 (Jeffrey Dunoff & Mark Pollack ed., 2013).
Anja P. Jakobi & Kerstin Martens, Conclusion: findings, Implications and Outlook of OECD Governance, in Mechanisms of OECD Governance: International Incentives for National Policy-Making? 261, 261 (2010).
Ayelet Berman et al, Introduction and Key Issues Surrounding Informal International Lawmaking, in Informal International Lawmaking: Case Studies 1, 5 (Ayelet Berman et al eds., 2012).
Ayelet Berman, The Role of Domestic Administrative Law in the Accountability of Informal International Lawmaking: The Case of the ICH, in Informal International Lawmaking 468, 472 (Joost Pauwelyn et al. eds., 2012).
Grahame F. Thompson, Global Administrative Law, the OECD, and International Investment, in The Constitutionalization of the Global Corporate Sphere? 135, 140 (2012).
Joost Pauwelyn et al, Informal International Lawmaking: An Assessment and Template to Keep It Both Effective and Accountable, in Informal International Lawmaking 500, 536 (Joost Pauwelyn et al. eds., 2012).
Joost Pauwelyn et al, An Introduction to Informal International Lawmaking, in Informal International Lawmaking 1, 1 (Joost Pauwelyn et al. eds., 2012).
Joost Pauwelyn, Is It International Law or Not, and Does It Even Matter?, in Informal International Lawmaking 125, 125 (Joost Pauwelyn et al. eds., 2012).
Kerstin Martens & Anja P. Jakobi, Introduction: The OECD as an Actor in International Politics, in Mechanism of OECD Governance: International Incentives for National Policy-Making? 2, 8 (2010).
Maciej Konrad Borowicz, Financial Markets, Regulatory Failures and Transnational Regulatory Safety Nets: The Buildings of a Policy-Making Metaphor, in Informal International Lawmaking: Case Studies 221, 234 (2012).
Morten Ougaard, The OECD’s Global Role: Agenda-setting and Policy Diffusion, Mechanisms of OECD Governance: Internatioanl Incentives for National Policy-Making? 26, 37 (2010).
Philipp Dann & Marie von Engelhardt, Legal Approaches to Global Governance and Accountability: Informal Lawmaking, International Public Authority, and Global Administrative Law Compared, in Informal International Lawmaking 106, 115 (Joost Pauwelyn et al. eds., 2012).
Shawn Donnelly, Informal International Lawmaking: Global Financial Market Regulation, in Informal International Lawmaking: Case Studies 179, 211(Ayelet Berman et al eds., 2012).
Stephen McBride & Rianne Mahon, Conclusion, in The OECD and Transnational Governance 276, 276 (Rianne Mahon & Stephen McBride eds., 2008).
Stefan Voigt, The Economics of Informal International Law - An Empirical Assessment, in Informal International Lawmaking 82, 87 (Joost Pauwelyn et al. eds., 2012).
Takao Suami, Informal International Lawmaking in East Asia – An Examination of APEC, in Informal International Lawmaking: Case Studies 55, 65 (Ayelet Berman et al eds., 2012).
Teubner Gunther & Korth Peter, Two Kinds of Legal Pluralism: Collision of Transnational Regimes in the Double Fragmentation of World Society, Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation 23, 33(Margaret Young ed., 2012).
Tim Corthaut et al, Operationalizing Accountability in Respect of Informal International Lawmaking Mechanisms, in Informal International Lawmaking 310, 335 (Joost Pauwelyn et al. eds., 2012).
(四)國際組織資料
OECD, 2015 PISA Country Participation, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/PISA%20Map%20legend%20disclaimer.png
OECD, BEPS Introduction, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-about.htm
OECD, Best Practice Principles on the Governance of Regulators,
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/governance-regulators.htm
OECD, China Index, http://www.oecdchina.org/about/index.html
OECD, Developing countries and BEPS, http://www.oecd.org/tax/developing-countries-and-beps.htm#participation
OECD, History, https://www.oecd.org/about/history/
OECD, legal intruments, https://www.oecd.org/legal/legal-instruments.html
OECD, Members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/inclusive-framework-on-beps-composition.pdf
OECD, OECD Convention, http://www.webcitation.org/6ZBPxNCdR?url=https://www.oecd.org/general/conventionontheorganisationforeconomicco-operationanddevelopment.htm
OECD, On-Line Guide to OECD Intergovernmental Activity, http://webnet.oecd.org/oecdgroups/
OECD, other key partners, http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/(last visited: 10/07/2017)
OECD, Partnership in OECD bodies, https://www.oecd.org/globalrelations/partnershipsinoecdbodies/
OECD, PISA 2006 Technical Report, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9809041e.pdf?expires=1498668910&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=F8D77BD78405A24B65FB5E3B4DE8BABA,at 21.
OECD, PISA each country's page, http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/twn?lg=en
OECD, PISA FAQ, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq/
OECD, Recommendations and Guidelines on Regulatory Policy, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/recommendations-guidelines.htm
OECD, Who drives the OECD's work?, http://www.oecd.org/about/whodoeswhat/
(五)網路文獻
Anne-Marie Slaugter, Good Reasons for Going Around the U.N., N.Y. Times(March 18, 2003),
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/opinion/good-reasons-for-going-around-the-un.html?mcubz=2.
Pagai Fabrizio, Peer review – An OECD Tool for Co-operation and Change electronic version
BBC News,http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29531850(
IMF網站調查資料, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/pol013a.htm
華盛頓郵報訪芬蘭教育政策專家Pasi Sahlberg,https://pasisahlberg.com/interview-washington-post-happened-finlands-schools/