| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 法學系 === 95 === It is very much expected that all court cases coming through the judicial process should receive “objective” and “just” ruling. That is the general expectation of the people and the dream of many legal practitioners. This thesis examines Ronald Dworkin’s theory, particularly on the “Right Answer Thesis” against a court case known as the “Gin-Gin Gay Bookstore vs. The State” to further discuss how the theory provides a ground to achieve the goal.
Dworkin’s theory of “Right Answer Thesis” provides a philosophical debate against what he calls “skepticism” that there is no one single answer to any given case. If Dworkin’s theory is proven adequate, then there got to be one “right answer” to a given case, and this thesis attempts to find that ”right answer” for the Gin-Gin Gay Bookstore case.
In order to achieve this aim, this thesis incorporates and analyzes Dworkin’s other theories, particularly his theory of interpretation and law as integrity. Despite its abstractive aspect of these theories, Dworkin also emphasizes on discussions of substance, which includes several stages, and the fundamental one is on the question of “legality.” The crucial argument for the Gin-Gin Gay Bookstore case is clearly on the debate of legality.
This thesis concludes that what concerns the Gin Gin case, that is the Article 235 of the Criminal Code, is proven unconstitutional and against the value of legality. This is what this thesis concludes to demonstrate as the right answer for the case and while the Judicial Yuan Interpretation NO. 617 hold that Article 235 is not unconstitutional, it reveals how the state is exercising gender discrimination.
|
|---|
