Abstract
I.Research Background The content of this paper includes the topic of “designated historic sites” or “registered historic buildings”, particularly the interface of proper treatment between the “administrative sanction” in public law and the “property right” in private law. This study analyzes and reviews the problem through the professional aspect of architecture and the thought of law concept to propose the research conclusions, which can be used as the reference for promoting the policy and law operation by the competent authority of culture heritage. II. Methodology and process This research topic has already spanned to the fields, such as the architecture, cultural heritage, administrative law and civil law etc. The author would focus on the purpose of cultural heritage preservation, to discuss the conflict on the relevant law or system for the value of the historic sites and historic buildings. The following research procedures are followed: (1) Information collection: Collect relevant research paper or literature, lawful explanation etc. (2) Case study: Discuss the dispute or cause from the administrative procedural case. (3)Comprehensive review: Regress the topic of “designated historic sites” or “registered historic buildings” at present stage. III. Major findings (described briefly as follows) 1. Concept identification: Understand relevant lawful topics of “designated historic sites” or “registered historic buildings” deeply and grasp the meaning correctly (see p7～18 for detail) (1) Understand the cultural heritage preservation (2) Understand the property right in private law and the administrative sanction in public law deeply (3) Grasp the meaning of the “designated historic sites” and “registered historic buildings” correctly 2. Focal points collation: Focal points collation for the lawful protection of the historic sites and historic buildings (see p19～36 for detail) (1) Lawful system for the protection of the historic sites and historic buildings (2) Relevant protection of the historic sites and historic buildings internationally (3) The lawful protection procedure of the historic sites and historic buildings domestically (taking Taipei City as an example) 3. Case study: The lawsuit case study for the designation of historic sites and the registration of historic buildings (see p37～52 for detail) (1) Collation for lawsuit cases of the designation of historic sites and the registration of historic buildings (2) Discussion for lawsuit case of the designation of historic sites (see p42～46 for detail) Taking the administrative litigation (Suit No. 815 in 2004) and appeal (Judgment No. 569 in 2007) for the designation of historic sites of the “Administration Building, Wenhui Hall, General Classroom Building” in National Taiwan Normal University as example. (3) Discussion for lawsuit case of the registration of historic buildings (see p47～51 for detail) Taking the administrative litigation (Suit No. 3413 in 2005) and appeal (Judgment No. 229 in 2008) for the registration of historic buildings in “Shin Hong Choon Tea Hong” as example. IV. Major recommendations Five conclusions and three concrete recommendations to the administrative authorities are summarized as follows: (1) Conclusions: (Details in P. 53～55) 1. The definition of “historic sites” and “historic buildings” specified in Item 1 of Article 1 in the “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (2005.2.5)” and Item 2 of Article 1 in “Enforcement Rules for the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (2006.3.14)” is too ambiguous and is not distinguished suitably. 2. The basis for the “designation of historic sites” specified in Article 2 in the “Regulations for Designating and Abolishing Historical Sites (2007.12.4)” is too loose and required to be strengthened urgently. 3. The basis for the “registration of historic buildings” specified in Article 2 in the “Regulations for Reviewing and Subsidizing of Registration and Abolishment of Historical Buildings (2006.1.12)” is too ambiguous and the actual content is required to be emphasized. 4. The qualification for the review committee member of “designation of historic sites” and “registration of historic buildings” should be selected rigorously and the occupational ethics should be considered. 5. The reason for resolution reached at the review meeting on the “designation of historic sites” or “registration of historic buildings” should be rational sufficiently and should have the professional architecture value. (2) suggestions to the administrative authorities (Details in P. 55) Suggestion 1: Immediate feasible recommendation: To distinguish the definition of “historic sites” and “historic buildings” in detail in the “Cultural Heritage Preservation Act” Major authority: Council for Cultural Affairs, the Executive Yuan Assisting authority: Architecture & Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, The Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior Description: In order to increase the administrative efficiency and prevent the people from adopting the lawsuit or fierce resistance and even taking destroying action, the definition of “historic sites” and “historic buildings” should be studied and distinguished in detail. Suggestion 2: Medium- and long-term recommendation: To strengthen the basis for the “designation of historic sites” specified in the “Regulations for Designating and Abolishing Historical Sites” Major authority: Council for Cultural Affairs, the Executive Yuan Assisting authority: Architecture & Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, The Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior Description: Whether the building is a “historical site” has its substantial content or implicit value. Therefore, the basis for the “designation of historic sites” should be studied and strengthened rigorously. Suggestion 3: Medium- and long-term suggestion: To strengthen the basis for the “registration of historic buildings” specified in the “Regulations for Reviewing and Subsidizing of Registration and Abolishment of Historical Buildings” Major authority: Council for Cultural Affairs, the Executive Yuan Assisting authority: Architecture & Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, The Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior Description: In order to prevent the dispute of “historic buildings” in the administrative operation or lawsuit, the basis for the “registration of historic buildings” should be studied and strengthened rigorously.