| Summary: | 碩士 === 世新大學 === 法律學研究所(含碩專班) === 104 === Abstract
The issue of unlaw or unethical behaviors in public or private organizations has draw attention of the international community. It is evident that a complete whistleblower protection system can reduce the occurance of corruption and misbehavior in the orgazation. Many countries, including United States, England and Japan, have enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act to provide a protection for whistlblowers. The Act establishes a mechanism to provide employees a channel to report illegal incidents, government agencies to initiate an official Investigation, and allegers or reprorters the judicial support against retatiliation acts.
At present, these is no whistleblower protection law in Taiwan. Although the Taiwanese government has begun to draft the Taiwanese Whistleblower Protection Law with different perspectitive, the Act will likely take long time to pass. Before the passage of the Act, only limited laws can deal with whistle blower cases in current Taiwanese legal system and none of them can provide sufficient support or protection for whistleblowers. Threre are two major goals to establish a whistleblower protection system. From the perpective of instiution, it will be helpful to correct internal miscounducts in the organization. From the perpective of whistleblower, the sytem can avoid disclosers, who are normally employed by the orgainzaton and aware of scandels and unethical deals of the insiders, from retaliation actions by orgatination.
This research is focused on the discussion of how to provide better and sufficient protection for whistleblowing employees in the framework of whistleblower protection act. It will explore the issues of duty of loyalty and confidencialty. Futher, it will discuss how to balance two interests when whistleblower faced the duty to keep in confidence for corporate matter and the duty to disclose corporate misconducts for public interest. The research also will conduct a comparative case law analysis between Taiwanese and Japanese. By analyzing eight cases in each country, it could be helpful to provide possible ways or approaches to build a sound Taiwanese Whistleblower Protection System.
|
|---|
