台中 市 會計師 公會 理事長的問題，透過圖書和論文來找解法和答案更準確安心。 我們找到下列包括價格和評價等資訊懶人包

競逐人權？--國家與律師專業團體共謀下的公設辯護人制度

為了解決台中 市 會計師 公會 理事長的問題，作者林意淳 這樣論述：

本研究將以公設辯護人制度的變遷與運作為例，檢視權力一元走向權力多元的過程中，當律師團體獲得機會施展象徵權力，以此推動制度變革時，帶來的社會效果為何？而透過制度實作累積的成果，是否能夠回應其「保障人權」的宣稱？當公設辯護人制度於中國民國時期建立時，是在司法場域新生的時空脈絡下，其建立的基礎，既出自統治者政治邏輯的計算，更深層的影響因素在於律師團體貧弱的司法資本難以發揮作用，之所以如此，因為國家與律師團體之間的權力鬥爭，其實座落在一個更大的「傳統與現代」衝突的歷局格局中，因而在社會空間內已結構起來的習氣，是另一個隱微而有力的因素，支持公辯制度的正當性。二戰後，公設辯護人制度在台灣施行，而因政治情

勢森嚴，政治場域仍舊在整體權力場域中佔支配地位，司法場域的相對自主性也仍然低落。但台灣社會自1980年代中期解嚴以來，社會的結構特質逐漸由「一黨獨大」轉向「專業共構」，不同的專業興起，擴張其相對自主性，在相對開放、民主的社會氛圍下，尋求更多參與各自場域事務的空間。台灣的律師團體在經歷過內部結構轉變後，於1990年代，在整個司法場域面臨人民司法信心危機的脈絡下，更致力於推動司法改革，用以提升自身在司法場域內地位的同時，也試圖為台灣的司法制度重新設定一套新的遊戲規則，以擺脫威權時代底下，受司法官僚掣肘的局面。事實上，司法改革的進展，是律師團體與國家進行象徵權力鬥爭的過程，雙方在這過程中，爭相挪用特

定的象徵語言，於特定場景中運作各種策略，而有衝突、對立、依賴、合作、共謀與妥協等互動，是以建立正當性基礎為目標，以運作能夠安頓有利於自身團體利益秩序的象徵權力。但更深層地來看，這場不休止的鬥爭仍舊座落在「傳統與現代」衝突的歷局格局中，影響司法場域邊界畫界的同時，也影響行動者司法資本的累積。本研究指出，當1990年代末，律師團體已累積起龐大的象徵資本而能運作象徵權力，推動特定制度的變革，這些是：1999年全國司法改革會議做成的決議：廢除公設辯護人制度，並以法律扶助基金會來代替，以及同場會議中最受矚目的改革方案：刑事訴訟法朝當事人進行主義方向修法。然而，這些制度的變遷日後匯聚於刑事訴訟法庭上，實作

現場的成果卻反撲了律師團體以「保障人權」為改革背書的說法。本研究指出，當律師團體對特定制度的宣稱，是因誤認機制而產生正當性基礎，制度的變革其實是國家與律師專業團體雙方衡量彼此實力下，共謀的妥協產物，從當前制度實作累積的效果來看，人們得以再認誤認，「保障人權」因此顯得是掩蓋雙方行動者萃取特定利益的說詞，以致於律師專業團體宣稱的自主性，只是跛腳的自主性，而國家也還停留在威權時代結構出來的職權心態中。研究最後指出，任何一個場域的行動者所能成就的場域自主性，是相對的，而非絕對。一個制度的建立除有賴場域內行動者，即專業人士的參與，場域外的需求與價值，同樣必須被納入考量。By taking the exa

mple of the transition and running of the public defender system, this thesis concerns that in the changing of single power to multiple powers, what social effects the lawyers have brought to our society, after they have finally gotten chance to perform symbolic power to change the existed instituti

ons? And how was the outcome of the practice of new institutions? Did it respond well to the symbolic languages, such as “Protect human rights,” appropriated by lawyers?It was in the context of a newborn judicial field when the public defender system was set up in China in the period of Republic of

China. The pursuit of political interests established the public defender system; but the other factor was that the lawyers had too less judicial capital to make huger influence in the judicial field. One of the reasons why the lawyers had so less judicial capital was that the battle for power betwe

en the state and the lawyers actually located in a larger historical pattern, which was “the conflict between tradition and modernity.” Due to this, the habitus, which was structured in the social space for a long time, was another invisible but powerful support for the establishment of the public d

efender system.After the WW-II, the state exercised the public defender system throughout Taiwan. For a long time after the WW-II, the political atmosphere was so harsh that the political field dominates the power fields, and thus the relative autonomy of the judicial field kept low. However, since

the end of martial law in the mid 1980s, many different professions have been trying to strengthen their relative autonomy, gaining more policy-making possibility in their own field in a relatively open and democratic atmosphere. From then on, the quality of Taiwan’s social structure has been changi

ng from “monopoly of one party” to “governance of many professions.”In late 1980s and early 1990s, when the judicial field was facing the crisis of people’s distrust, the lawyers led to set judicial reform into action. But before those movements, the lawyers had just already experienced power struct

ure changed in their own group. New leaders of the group were trying to set up new judicial institutions so that they could diminish the constraint from the judicial bureaucracy, which used to work for the political end. In view of this, the progress of judicial reform has been showing up as a long-

run battle for symbolic power between the lawyers and the state. Actually, on one side, the lawyers has been trying to promote their social status and re-establish the effectiveness of judicial capital; on the other side, the state has been trying to repair its jeopardy dominant legitimacy. Both age

nts used specific symbolic language, such as “Protect human rights,” and exercised strategies to battle with each other so that they had relationships of conflict, confrontation, dependence, cooperation, complicity, compromise, and so on in the process. The goal of both agents was to build the basis

of legitimacy for exercising symbolic power, which can set up orders for their own good. However, this non-stop battle still located in “the conflict between tradition and modernity,” which had profound influence not only on the range of the boundary of the judicial field, but also on the accumulat

ion of judicial capital.When it came to the end of 1990s, the lawyers had already accumulated great symbolic capital. Thus they perform symbolic power to push some institutions changed. It happened in the National Judicial Reform Meeting in 1999, the public defender system was decided to be abolishe

d and to be replaced by “the legal aid foundation;” besides, the most argumentative reform in the same meeting, the code of criminal procedure, was decided to amend toward the adversarial system. However, couple years later the outcome of the practice on the criminal court made a counterattack on th

e supporting idea for new institutions, such as “Protect human right” claimed by the lawyers.This thesis points out that through the mis-recognition mechanism, the lawyers built the basis of legitimacy for claiming specific institutions. Actually, the changes of institutions were compromising conclu

sions under that the state and the lawyers assessed each other’s competence. From the effect of accumulated practice, people finally had opportunities to re-cognize the mis-recognization, and found that both the lawyers and the state spoke “Protect human right” as if it was just rhetoric, which cove

red specific interest extraction. In this way, the autonomy of the lawyers looked just like lame autonomy, and the state still kept the authority mentality that was structured in the days of the Authoritarian Regime. This thesis finally shows that every field can only build relative, not absolute, a

utonomy. With regard that professionals are interest-related agent, it would be a problem if citizens only authorize professionals to make decisions about the affairs of specific fields. If we want to set up new systems, actually, it is really important to include the ideas of professionals inside t

he field, but it is also a must to take seriously voices and virtues outside the field.