| 摘要: | 本文以「語言、族群、規範」的關聯為核心，希望能探究客語語言權若置於我國憲法脈絡，能以何種路徑建構其權利內涵與證立其存在，並辨析現有語言法制對法律上語言權的內涵與定位為何。
本文首先從基本權功能理論及與語言權有關的理論爬梳，藉此擘劃探討客語語言權作為基本權利所需的理論基礎。接著，從臺灣的語言政策變遷談起，包括獨尊華語的國語政策、到重視本土語言的語言政策轉向，並試圖釐清國語政策對語言地位、語言習慣和語言態度的影響，探究現行客語語言使用現狀和處境，立基於臺灣歷史脈絡下的梳理，探討語言、族群與規範間的關係，最終從語言政策到語言權利，憲法權利如何反映出國家的價值觀及因應歷史變遷與現實處境而解釋其內涵，分別從理論、歷史與現實層次，作為論證客語語言權的素材。
於權利建構層次，本文探究客語語言權受憲法保障的正當性、憲法依據、權利內涵及權利功能，從臺灣具體社會脈絡，論證憲法保障語言權的路徑，並深究語言權背後蘊含的自由權、社會權與平等權性質，探討其性質屬於個人權、集體權或兩者兼具。研究發現，個人層次的自我實現與人格發展、族群層次的延續與保障、國家層次的多元文化存續與語言轉型正義的不義反省，足以作為憲法層次上保障客語語言權之正當性基礎，為從我國具體社會脈絡而出發的，由個人、族群、及國家觀點構築而成的語言權觀點，應受憲法第22條及憲法增修條文第10條第11項所保障，納入基本權保障體系。語言權的保障領域並不侷限於純粹溝通工具功能，亦包括語言平等、語言存續、自由選擇使用語言之語言權觀點。而且，相比於文化權、言論自由，語言權具有自由權、社會權與平等權等不同性質，有獨立討論之必要性。能主張語言權者，由其正當性基礎出發，應侷限於對客家族群或語言有所認同者方得主張，凸顯認同具有流動性，語言、族群、文化及血緣並非本質上連結的特性。同時，從集體語言權的面向出發，權利主體仍應包括客家族群，特別是該客家族群集體對於客語師資、客語標準化、客語拼音與文字的想像，應建構一定之程序予以彙整。語言權之憲法功能，包括國家在組織與程序保障、制度性保障與保護義務之客觀法規範義務，亦包括人民主觀上所擁有的防禦權，以及在最低程度確保客語存續的憲法上請求權。
於權利實踐層次，探究現行語言法制政策之保障面向和內涵、是否落實憲法之語言權保障、兩者之差異何在，希冀能分析出目前法律已實現的憲法權利、現行法不足或爭議之處，藉以作為未來法制面向改進的方向。研究發現，現行語言法制所保障的面向，已從客家族群的集體權保障，走向個人權、平等權，且包含使用自由、教學語言、使用公共服務與傳播資源等不同面向，保障的內涵亦包括溝通工具論、語言平等論、自由選擇論、存續確保論等不同內涵的語言權，惟，未能確保人民能真正踐行語言選擇自由、在機會平等的情況下決定是否以自身母語進行溝通，亦常面臨到其規範內容「有義務而無對應的主觀權利、有主觀權利卻無對應的國家義務」，在此情況下，人民並無具體法律上權利得以主張，亦無相關的救濟方式規定，即使有宣示性的權利，但亦無真正相對應、足以保障該權利之義務規定。最後，多部法律、專法專責模式，雖是考量到臺灣具有多元族群、不同國家語言的個別情況，但如何使各國家機關充分認知到本土語言的語言權保障，而使國家義務真正落實在每個機關，仍有疑義。未來，如何處理私部門的語言使用問題、不同語言族群之資源分配問題、窒礙難行情況是否改善、罰則處罰規定如何避免落入國語政策窠臼，則為語言權實踐層次必然面對之爭議。
;This article revolves around the interplay of "language, ethnicity, and norms" and aims to explore how hakka language rights, when placed within the context of the Constitution of our country, can construct their rights′ implications and establish their existence. It also seeks to analyze the current language laws and regulations to discern their connotations and positioning within the legal framework.
The article begins by examining the theoretical foundations of fundamental rights, especially those related to language rights. It outlines the theoretical basis required for hakka language rights as fundamental rights. Subsequently, it delves into Taiwan′s language policy shifts, starting with Policy of Official Language that exclusively elevates Mandarin Chinese and then transitioning towards a focus on native languages. It attempts to clarify the impact of Policy of Official Language on language status, language habits, and language attitudes. The article explores the present situation and context of hakka language usage and, based on the historical context of Taiwan, investigates the relationships among language, ethnicity, and norms. Finally, it examines how constitutional rights reflect the country′s values and address historical changes and current circumstances. This exploration is conducted from theoretical, historical, and practical perspectives and serves as material for arguing hakka language rights.
At the level of rights construction, this article investigates the legitimacy, constitutional basis, rights implications, and functions of hakka language rights protected by the Constitution, all within the specific social context of Taiwan. It discusses the nature of these rights, whether they are individual rights, collective rights, or a combination of both. The research finds that the legitimacy of hakka language rights can be established based on the individual level of self-realization and personality development, the group level of continuity and protection of the hakka community, and the national level of multicultural preservation and the reflection of historical injustices in language transitional justice. These aspects serve as the legitimacy basis for constitutional protection of hakka language rights, aligning them with Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 10, Paragraph 11 of the Constitutional Amendments. The protection of language rights encompasses more than just being a communication tool; it also includes perspectives on language equality, language preservation, and the freedom to choose one′s language of use. Furthermore, compared to cultural rights and freedom of speech, language rights possess distinct characteristics such as freedom rights, social rights, and equality rights, warranting separate discussion. Those who can claim language rights should do so based on their legitimacy basis, which should be restricted to individuals or groups that identify with the hakka community or languages, highlighting the fluidity of identity. Additionally, considering collective language rights, the subjects of these rights should still encompass the hakka community, particularly when it comes to the collective imagination of hakka language teaching, standardization, phonetics, and writing, which should be established through a specific process. Concerning the constitutional function of language rights, it includes objective legal obligations of Security Function of Organization and Procedure, Institutional Guarantee, and Protection Obligation Function of Fundamental Rights. It also encompasses the subjective defense rights of the people and the constitutional right to request, at a minimum, the preservation of the hakka language.
At the level of rights implementation, the article investigates the aspects and implications protected by the current language legal framework and policies, and it examines whether these aspects effectively implement the constitutional protection of language rights. The article highlights the differences between the two and aims to identify what constitutional rights the current laws have already realized, what potential shortcomings or disputes exist, and uses these as directions for future legal improvements. The research finds that the current language legal framework shifts its focus from the collective protection of the hakka community to individual rights and equality rights. It covers various aspects such as freedom of usage, language of instruction, access to public services, and access to broadcasting resources. The connotations of protection include communication tool theory, language equality theory, freedom of choice theory, and preservation guarantee theory. However, it fails to ensure that people can genuinely exercise their language choice freedom, especially when deciding whether to use their mother tongue for communication, under conditions of equal opportunities. It often faces the dilemma of normative content that involves "having obligations without corresponding subjective rights, having subjective rights without corresponding state obligations." In such cases, people lack specific legal rights to assert, and there are no provisions for related remedies, even if declarative rights exist, they often lack corresponding and sufficient obligations. Finally, several laws and specialized statutes account for Taiwan′s diverse ethnic groups and the existence of different national languages. However, there remains uncertainty regarding how to ensure that government agencies fully acknowledge language rights protection for native languages and ensure that state obligations are genuinely implemented in each agency. In the future, addressing language usage in the private sector, resource allocation among different language communities, resolving impractical situations, and avoiding pitfalls related to Policy of Official Language will be inevitable challenges at the practical level of language rights implementation. |
