|摘要: ||現行法令是管制台灣人民、法人和非法人組織對外投資、授權及技術移轉等經濟活動，以及管制從中國引進產業技術。同時，總析該等對外經濟管制法令及政策措施，其立法原理實迥異於國際投資法及國際技術移轉法原理，其法令體系極為紛雜，其法律概念極為不確定，其行政裁量極易越量裁處，不具有行政程序之可預測性，而且亦有違憲法第十條、第十五條、二十三條和第一百五十一條及憲法增修條文第十條第一項所揭櫫的基本人權及國民經濟基本國策。次者，對經濟及科技所需的全球活動、經營舞台及其競爭力的維持，本質上即不應以法令干預、阻擾或禁止，更顯不宜參入特定意識形態。否則，不僅法令管制的效用是相當有限的，而且法令管制終將淪為具文，反而將損政府執法信用。更何況，深入了解台灣產業、技術及市場結構，其內延縱深程度甚淺，是極須依賴全球資源及市場，豈能以法令鎖國並弱化台灣人民、法人及非法人組織以對外投資、授權及技術移轉活動擴大全球經濟版圖呢？三者，資訊數位及網路時代，又更加速經濟及科技全球化，以及跨國技術移動的便利，這些科技及其移動益使所謂的「技術合作」之行政管制幾無意義。 職故，祇有解放現行法令對國外、大陸、港澳投資及技術合作的管制，建構自由開放的對外投資、授權及技術移轉新環境，台灣企業經營的全球化以及成為跨國公司始有更佳機會。因此，政府政策應調整為原則上無須管制，而企業則基於股東和債權人權益及公司治理，應立即充分正確的揭露資訊，以及嚴守合併財務報表編製和申報規範。例外的，政府只限於最小範圍內管制與國防科技有關的技術輸出即可。最後，台灣企業所迫切需要的是跨國公司經營的知識、經驗及人才，這是政府應立即重視的。|
To date, Taiwan laws and regulations have imposed strict restraints on economic activities like outbound investment, license and technology transfer by Taiwan citizens, legal entities and organizations, as well as on introduction of technology from Mainland China. These restraining laws and their corresponding policies, in legal theory, differ greatly from that of international investment laws and international technology transfer laws. These laws lack stability and predictability in interpretation, the legal system thereof is complex, and the administrative rulings often exceed their empowerment and sacrifice predictability. The hindrance also lies in the laws’ inconsistency with the basic human right and nationals’ economy as stipulated in Articles 10, 15, 23, and 151 and amended Article 10-1 of the Constitution. Moreover, the global activities and platform and their competitiveness shall not be interfered, disturbed or restricted by laws; let alone by any ideology. The effect and purpose of these restraining laws will presumptively be little or even frustrated, which is eventually detrimental to government’s reputation in law enforcement. Taiwan’s industries, technologies and markets rely heavily on global resources and markets in making up for its inadequacy. The last thing for the laws to achieve is to weaken the outbound investment, license and technology transfer necessary for the growth in the global economic sharing by Taiwan citizens, legal entities, and organizations. Thirdly, digitalization and internet have helped speed up economic and technological globalization, and benefited technology crossing the border. The mobility of these modern technologies has rendered administrative restraints on technology cooperation almost meaningless. The solution, if any, shall stem from the lifting of the restraints on foreign, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao investment by current laws, and establishing a positive and liberalized environment for the outbound investment, license and technology transfer. Only with this can Taiwan industries enjoy a better chance in globalization and internationalization of their operations. Taiwan government, in principle, shall lift all restraints and shift the focus to corporate governance and supervision by shareholders and creditors under the mechanism of compulsory disclosure of operational information and compliance of consolidated financial reporting rules. The sole restraint, if we may, from the government may take place to limited extent and on technology export relating to military technology. Finally, what is most worthy of Taiwan government’s attention is the incubation of knowledge, experience and talents for the internationalization of Taiwan enterprises.