隨著全球化的浪潮，各國經貿往來日增，為吸引投資，各國無不致力完善法律制度，以營造適宜公司經營的法律環境。在資訊取得便利的現今，改善法律制度已不再只能透過自行設計，對於成功制度的移植，如今已蔚為世界各國法律發展普遍採取的途徑。各國法律逐漸趨於一致的現象，似已然成為現在進行式。然根據經濟合作暨發展組織的調查結果，現今世界上明文賦予股東薪酬決定權的國家，與實際上股東可對此做決定的國家數量仍有相當的落差。顯示趨同很可能只存在於表象。
　　法律移植後，移植制度在當地的發展，除與該制度的核心有關，亦受到當地因素的影響。本文延續學說討論，將法律的趨同與歧異，分為「形式」、「功能」兩個面向，並認為法律之執行，亦屬於功能趨同之一環。不同因素的影響，將會呈現於法律趨同的不同面向；各面向同時存在趨同或歧異現象，即為看似趨同，實則不然的原因。此外，本文以受託義務為例，說明法律移植下的趨同現象，本文將受託義務制度分為「行為標準」、「審查基準」兩部分，主張任一部皆可做為移植標的，並發生趨同歧異現象。再以臺灣受託義務法制發展為例進行印證。
　　本文主張，不僅可以透過規範的制定進行法律移植，法院判決亦為法律移植的途徑，臺灣於公司法中並未明定經營判斷法則，卻透過法院於實務判決引進並適用，即為一例；同樣地，以法院判決途徑進行的法律移植，亦可能發生趨同歧異的現象。我國公司法制發展受法律文化影響，對於受託義務違反之究責，較依賴刑事訴訟，呈現法律執行的功能歧異。實證結果顯示，我國刑事訴訟中，經營判斷法則功能趨同之程度大於民事訴訟，說明刑事訴訟中，法院為緩和刑罰對企業經營決策之過度干預，可能對經營判斷法則具有較大之使用動機。最後，本文參酌澳洲法公部門執行機制，對應我國對於不法行為依賴刑事訴訟的傾向，建議透過我國投保中心對董事訴訟制度加強對於受託義務違反之執行，以兼顧受託義務抑制不法與損害填補之目的，並避免對企業造成過度干預，而阻礙資本市場之發展。

Abstract
In the trends of globalization, international trade between countries has been continuously increasing. In order to attract foreign capital, countries throughout the world are trying their best to perfect its regulations, creating a more company-friendly legal environment. Law reformation nowadays is no longer by designed domestically thanks to the ease of acquiring information. Transplantation of successful legal rules or systems has been a method that countries over the world adopt to improve their own legal system. A tendency of convergence of legal rules over countries is progressing. Nevertheless, according to a survey of OECD, although many countries have officially adopted “Say on Pay Policy” in their written laws or regulations, in reality there is still a significant difference from those who empower shareholders in this way. Convergence may possibly exist only on the surface.
The development of transplanted rules is related not only to the core element of the rule but domestic factors. This dissertation follows on the theory of dividing convergence and divergence of the legal rule into two aspects, “formal convergence” and, “functional convergence”, including enforcement as a part of functional convergence. Different factors lead to different aspects of legal convergence. Convergence and divergence coexists simultaneously in all aspects, which is the reason why sometimes it seems to converge, but is actually not. In addition, this dissertation takes fiduciary duty as an example to explain the legal convergence after transplantation. This dissertation suggests that there are two different parts of fiduciary law, “standard of conduct” and “standard of review”. Each part can be the subject of legal transplantation, to then converge or diverge, and to confirm the theory with the development of fiduciary duty in Taiwan.
This dissertation suggests that legal transplantation can be done not only by rule enacting but court decisions. The fact that Taiwanese courts quote and use business judgment rule doctrine is a good example. Similarly, legal transplantation through court decisions may either converge or diverge. The empirical study of this dissertation suggests that the degree of convergence in business judgment rule exceeds civil litigation, which explains Taiwanese courts have more incentive to use business judgment rule doctrine in criminal procedure in order to deintensify intervention of penalty sanctions to business decisions. In the end, this dissertation refers to the public enforcement mechanism in Australian corporate law and suggests Taiwan solve the problem of overreliance on criminal prosecution by enhancing the enforcement through SFIPC action, achieving both compensation and deterrence.

第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 前言 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 5
第三節 文獻回顧 6
第一項 法律制度之趨同與歧異 6
第二項 法律制度之移植 9
第三項 法律制度移植下的趨同與歧異現象 11
第四節 研究方法與範圍 12
第一項 研究方法 12
第二項 研究範圍與研究限制 13
第五節 研究架構 14
第貳章 法律制度移植後呈現的趨同與歧異現象 15
第一節 法律移植 15
第一項 法源理論 16
第二項 移植制度與法律適應 16
第三項 小結－法律發展的在地與外來因素 20
第二節 法律趨同現象 21
第一項 形式趨同與功能趨同 21
第二項 法律執行之功能趨同 24
第三項 法律移植下趨同與歧異之原因 31
第四項 普通法系國家與大陸法系國家趨同差異 31
第五項 小結 33
第三節 受託義務法律移植下的之趨同與歧異 35
第一項 受託義務之源頭與特徵 36
第二項 受託義務之內涵 37
第三項 受託義務違反之救濟 41
第四項 受託義務的法院審查基準－經營判斷法則 41
第四節 受託人義務法律制度之移植與趨同 45
第一項 移植與趨同之標的 45
第二項 受託義務行為標準的趨同 46
第三項 受託義務審查基準的趨同 49
第五節 澳洲公司法：受託義務移植下趨同歧異之他國案例 50
第一項 澳洲公司法受託義務發展過程 50
第二項 澳洲公司法受託人義務之內涵 54
第三項 澳洲公司法受託人義務違反之追究 56
第四項 澳洲法受託義務的趨同與歧異 58
第六節 小結 61
第參章 臺灣受託義務之發展 63
第一節 臺灣公司法受託人義務 63
第一項 受託義務行為標準與法律趨同 63
第二項 受託義務違反執行手段 65
第三項 審查基準－經營判斷法則之發展 66
第二節 臺灣公司法受託義務之發展與趨同歧異現象 72
第一項 行為標準之形式與功能趨同 72
第二項 刑事訴訟－行為標準的功能趨同與歧異 73
第三項 文化、法律體系背景對執行機制趨同與歧異的影響 75
第三節 小結－臺灣受託義務趨同歧異現況 77
第肆章 臺灣受託義務法制功能趨同現況 80
第一節 實證研究案件選取 80
第一項 初階篩選：以關鍵字進行全文語詞搜尋 80
第二項 人工篩選：選取企業經營相關案件、剔除無關之案件 80
第二節 類型化說明：經營判斷法則於訴訟中之適用 81
第一項 否定適用與意向不明之判決 82
第二項 肯認經營判斷法則適用之判決 82
第三節 實證研究結果分析 93
第一項 整體觀察：經營判斷法則相關用語之使用趨勢 93
第二項 法律中介者的制度熟悉程度對於趨同之影響 94
第三項 趨同受法律中介者對制度之使用動機影響 95
第四項 自下而上之發展模式：律師、學者、下級法院於法律趨同之角色 96
第五項 功能趨同觀察：個案拒絕適用經營判斷法則之案例 98
第六項 功能趨同之深化：移植國對於制度的熟悉過程 99
第四節 案例分析：以兆豐金案為例 101
第一項 臺灣臺北地方法院105年度金重訴字第11號刑事判決 102
第二項 臺灣臺北地方法院105年度重訴字第1119號民事判決 104
第五節 小結－我國經營判斷法則於實務判決之趨同 107
第六節 建議 107
第一項 公部門發起－法院決定模式：澳洲Civil Penalty Provisions 108
第二項 我國現行可運用制度：投保中心對董事訴訟 111
第三項 結語 115
第伍章 結論與建議 117
第一節 趨同中之歧異：過度依賴刑事訴訟的企業不法問責模式 117
第二節 建議：過渡期採公部門主導之民事訴訟、同時強化私人執行 117
參考文獻 119
附錄：經營判斷法則相關判決列表 129

一、 中文部分
（一） 專書
劉連煜（2018），現代公司法，增訂13版，台北：新學林。
張永健（2019），法實證研究：原理、方法與應用，台北：新學林。
（二） 專書論文
王文宇（2003），論董事與公司間交易之規範，收於：新公司與企業法，頁97-138，台北：元照。
黃朝琮（2019），受託義務審查規則與舉證責任分配，公司法論文集 I：受託義務之理論與應用，台北：新學林，頁253-303。
黃朝琮（2019），受託義務之強化審查標準，公司法論文集 I：受託義務之理論與應用，頁2019 185-251，台北：新學林。
黃朝琮（2019），董事受託義務違反之事前救濟，公司法論文集 I：受託義務之理論與應用，頁272-299，台北：新學林。
黃朝琮（2019），由Fiduciary Duty之翻譯試詮其理解公司法論文集 I：受託義務之理論與應用，頁1-25，台北：新學林。
廖大穎、陳啟垂（2011年），論我國法適用「商業判斷原則」與舉證責任之分配，收於：施茂林等著，商業判斷原則與企業經營責任，頁189-238，台北：新學林。
廖大穎、林志潔（2011年），「商業判斷原則」與董事刑事責任之阻卻－臺北地院96重訴字第115號刑事判決，收於：施茂林等著，商業判斷原則與企業經營責任，頁239-271，台北：新學林。
蔡昌憲、溫祖德（2011年），論商業判斷法則於背信罪適用之妥當性－評高雄高分院96年金上重訴字第1號判決，收於：施茂林等著，商業判斷原則與企業經營責任，頁239-271，台北：新學林。
（三） 期刊論文
王文宇（2003），從公司不法行為之追訴民、刑、商法之分際，月旦法學雜誌，103期，頁49-60。
王文宇（2008），法律移植的契機與挑戰－以公司法的受託、注意與忠實義務為中心，月旦民商法雜誌，19期，頁81-91。
王文宇（2020），公司負責人的受託義務－溯源與展望，月旦民商法雜誌，68期，頁5-22。
王志誠（2007），股東裁判解任董監事訴請權，臺灣本土法學雜誌，92期，頁151-155。
周振鋒（2014），論裁判解任董事之規範－以實務見解為討論中心，華岡法粹，57期，頁101-125。
林仁光（2014），西風東漸－談內線交易Cvil Penalty制度之發展，月旦法學雜誌，231期，80-97。
林郁馨（2014），投資人的諾亞方舟—投資人保護中心與證券團體訴訟之實證研究，月旦法學，229期，頁75-97。
林國彬（2007），董事忠誠義務與司法審查標準之研究－以美國德拉瓦州公司法為主要範圍，政大法學評論，100 期，頁135-214。
邵慶平（2007），金融管制與私人執行－國際金融危機後管制發展的反省，國立中正大學法學集刊，40期，頁95-141。
邵慶平（2011），商業判斷原則的角色與適用－聯電案的延伸思考，科技法學評論，8卷1期，頁103-139。
邵慶平（2015），投保中心代表訴訟的公益性：檢視、強化與反省，臺大法學論叢，44卷1期，頁223-262。
邵慶平（2016），證券團體訴訟中因果關係構成要件的比較研究—兼論投保中心制度的改革方向，臺北大學法學論叢，99期，頁137-186。
洪令家（2018），論董、監事之裁判解任－以投保法第10條之1為中心，臺灣法學雜誌，337期，頁75-106。
陳彥良（2011），董事義務責任的解構與建構－德國法制之借鏡，月旦法學雜誌，198期，頁124-154。
黃朝琮（2016），受託義務審之對象，政大法學評論，145期，頁1-85。
曾宛如（2002），董事忠實義務之內涵及適用疑義－評析修正公司法第二十三條第一項，臺灣本土法學雜誌，38期，頁51-66。
曾宛如（2002），董事不法行為之制止及濫權行為之處理，臺灣法學雜誌，39期，頁153-156。
劉連煜（2007），董事責任與經營判斷法則，月旦民商法雜誌，17期，頁178-196。
劉連煜（2020），董事責任與經營判斷法則的運用－從我國司法判決看經營判斷法則的發展，財金法學研究，3卷1期，頁1-34。
蔡昌憲、溫祖德（2011），論商業判斷法則於背信罪之適用妥當性－評高雄高分院九十六年度金上重訴字第一號判決，月旦法學雜誌，195期，頁176-203。
（四） 碩博士論文
林妍均（2012），我國公司法第23條第1項之違反與股東代位訴訟實證研究，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
沈君玲（2018），銀行授信所涉法律問題與規範之研究，國立政治大學法律學系博士論文。
羅儀珊（2015），公司董事違反受託義務的刑事責任－以背信罪和特別背信罪為中心，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律研究所碩士論文。
（五） 政府網站、網路資料
公司法全盤修正修法委員會，公司法全盤修正委員會建議，頁3-132。http://www.scocar.org.tw/
二、 英文部分
（一） 專書
Kraakman, Reinier, Paul Davies, Henry Hansmann, Gerard Hertig, Klaus Hopt, Hideki Kanda and Edward Rock. 2004. The Anatomy of Corprorate Law Acomparative and Functional Approach. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bottomley, Stephen, Kath Hall, Peta Spender and Beth Nosworthy. 2018. Contemporary Australian Corporate law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plessis, Jean Jacques du, Anil Hargovan and Jason Harris. 2018. Principals of Contemporary Corporate Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
（二） 專書論文
Bebchuck, Lucian Arye and Mark J. Roe. 2004. A Theory of Path Dependence in Corporate Governance and Ownership. Pp. 69-113 in Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance, edited by Jeffrey N. Gordon and Mark J. Roe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Depoorter, Ben and Paul H. Rubin. 2017. Judge- Made Law and the Common Law Process. Pp. 129-142 in The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 3: Public Law and Legal Institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fisse, Brent & John Braithwaite. 1994. Making the Buck Stop. Pp. 133-157 in Corporations, Crime and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilson, Ronald J.. 2004. Globalizing Corporate Governance: Convergence of Formand Function. Pp. 128-158 in Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance, edited by Jeffrey N. Gordon and Mark J. Roe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gordon, Jeffery N.. 2018. Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Law and Governance. Pp. 28-55 in Oxford Handbook of Corporate Governance, edited by Jeffrey N. Gordon & Wolf-Georg Ringe. New York: Oxford University Press
Hertig, Gérard. 2004. Convergence of substantive law and convergence of enforcement: a comparison. Pp. 328-347 in Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance, edited by Jeffrey N. Gordon and Mark J. Roe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansmann, Henry and Reinier Kraakman. 2004. The End of History for Corporate Law. Pp. 33-68 in Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance, edited by Jeffrey N. Gordon and Mark J. Roe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, Lawrence S.. 2008.The Politics of Corporate Governance in Taiwan The Politics of Corporate Governance in Taiwan. Pp 255-277 in Transformin Corporate Governance in East Asia, edited by Curtis Milhaupt, Kon-Sik Kim, Hideki Kanda 256, 263. New York: Routledge.
Rose, Amanda. 2018. Public Enforcement Criminal versus Civil Rights. Pp.946-958 in Oxford Handbook of Corporate Governance, edited by Jeffrey N. Gordon & Wolf-Georg Ringe. New York: Oxford University Press.
Velasco, Julian. 2018. Fiduciary Principles in Corporate Law. Pp. 61-78 in Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law, edited by Evan J. Criddle, Paul B. Miller, and Robert H. Sitkoff. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thai, Lang. 2016. Australian Statutory Derivative Action-Defects, Alternative Approaches and Potential For Law Reform. Pp.237-254 in The Dynamism of Civil Procedure-Global Trends and Developments, edited by Colin B. Picker, and Guy I. Seidman. New York: Springer International Publishing.
Wang, Wallace Wen-Yeu and Carol Yuan-Chi Pang. 2006. An analytical framework for controlling minority shareholders and its application to Taiwan Transforming. Pp.278-298 in Corporate Governance in East Asia edited by Curtis Milhaupt, Kon-Sik Kim, Hideki Kanda. New York: Routledge.
（三） 期刊論文
Becker, Gary S.. 1968. Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy 76: 169-217.
Bainbridge, Stephen M.. 1997. Community and Statism: A Conservative Contractarian Critique of Progressive Corporate Law Scholarship. Cornell Law Review 82: 856-904.
Berkowitz, Daniel, Katharina Pistor and Jean-Francois Richard. 2003. The Transplant Effect. American Journal of Comparative Law 51:163-203.
Cairns, John W.. 2013. Watson, Walton, and the History of Legal Transplants. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 41: 637-696.
Clift, Ben. 2007. French Corporate Governance in the New Global Economy: Mechanisms of Change and Hybridisation within Models of Capitalism. Political Studies 55: 546-567.
Clopton, Zachary D.. 2016. Redundant Public-Private Enforcement. Vanderbilt Law Review 69: 285-332.
Coffee, John C. Jr.. 1991. Does "Unlawful" Mean "Criminal"?: Reflflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law. Boston University Law Review 71: 193-246.
Coffee, John C. Jr.. 1999. The Future as History: The Prospects for Global Convergence in Corporate Governance and Its Implications. Northwestern University Law Review 93: 641-707.
Cox, Prentiss. 2016. Public Enforcement Compensation and Private Rights. Minnesota Law Review 100: 2313-2380.
Dau-Schmidt, Kenneth G.. 1990. An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Law as a Preference Shaping Policy. Duke Law Journal 1: 1-38.
Dooley, Michael P. and E. Norman Veasey. 1989. The Role of the Board in Derivative Litigation: Delaware Law and the Current ALI Proposals Compared. The Business Lawyer 44: 503-542.
Enriques, Luca and Paolo F. Volpin. 2007. Corporate Governance Reforms in Continental Europe. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21: 117-140.
Frankel, Tamar. 1983. Fiduciary Law. California Law Review 71:795-836.
Gelter, Martin and Genevieve Helleringer. 2018. Opportunity Makes a Thief: Corporate Opportunities as Legal Transplant and Convergence in Corporate Law. Berkeley Business Law Journal 15:92-153.
Gilles, Myriam and Gary Friedman. 2012. After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. The University of Chicago Law Review 79:623-675.
Goto, Gen, Alan K. Koh and Dan W. Puchniak. 2020. Diversity of Shareholder Stewardship in Asia: Faux Convergence. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 53(3):829–880.
Hart, Henry M. Jr.. 1958. The Aims of the Criminal Law. Law and Contemporary Problems 23: 401-441.
Hill, Jennifer G.. 2005. The Persistent Debate about Convergence in Comparative Corporate Governance. Sydney Law Review 27: 743.
Hill, Jennifer G.. 2020. Shifting Contours of Directors’ Fiduciary Duties and Norms in. Comparative Corporate Governance UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 5: 139-157.
Renee M. Jones and Michelle Welsh. 2012. Toward a Public Enforcement Model for Directors’ Duty of Oversight. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 45(2): 343-403.
Kahn-Freund, Otto. 1974. On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law. Modern Law Review 37:1-27.
Kanda, Hideki and Curtis J. Milhaupt. 2003. Re-Examining Legal Transplants: The Director's Fiduciary Duty in Japanese Corporate Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law 51:887-901.
Kea, Andrew. 2014. The Public Enforcement of Directors' Duties: A Normative Inquiry. Common Law World Review 43: 89-119.
LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer. 1997. Legal Determinants of External Finance. The Journal of Finance 52: 1131-1150.
LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W Vishny. 1998. Law and Finance. Journal of Political Economy 106: 1113-1155.
LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer. 2000. Investor protection and corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics 58: 3-27.
LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer. 2002. Corporate Ownership around the World. The Journal of Finance 54: 471-517.
LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer. 2006. What Works in Securities Laws. The Journal of Finance 61: 1-32.
LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer. 2008. The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. Journal of Economic Literature 46: 285-232.
Larsson-Olaison, Ulf. 2020. Convergence of Corporate Governance Systems: A Legal Transplant Perspective. Competition & Change 24(5):450-470.
Legrand, Pierre. 1997. The Impossibility of 'Legal Transplants'. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 4: 111-124.
Lin, Andrew Jen-Guang. 2016. The Challenges and Contemporary Issues of Taiwan’s Investor Protection System: A Model to Learn or to Avoid. National Taiwan University Law Review 11:129-217.
Lin, Yu-Hsin. 2007. Modeling Securities Class Actions Outside the United States: The Role of Nonprofits in the Case of Taiwan . New York University Journal of Law and Business. 4:143-199.
Lucke, Horst. 2010. Legal history in Australia: The development of Australian legal/historical scholarship. Australian Bar Review 34(1): 109-148.
Mann, Kenneth. 1992. Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law. The Yale Law Journal 101: 1795-1873.
Milhaupt, Curtis J.. 2004. Nonprofit Organizations as Investor Protection: Economic Theory and Evidence from East Asia. Yale Journal of International Law 29: 169-207.
Milhaupt, Curtis J.. 1998. Property Rights in Firms. Virginia Law Review 84 1145-1194.
Miller, Jonathan M.. 2003. A Typology of Legal Transplants: Using Sociology, Legal History and Argentine Examplesto Explain the Transplant Process. The American Journal of Comparative Law 51: 839-885
Millon, David. 1993. New Directions in Corporate Law Communitarians, Contractarians and Crisis in Corporate Law. Washington and Lee Law Review 50: 1373-1393.
Ogus, Anthony. 2002.The Economic Basis of Legal Culture: Networks and Monopolization. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22: 419-434.
Palmiter, Alan R.. 1989. Reshaping the Corporate Fiduciary Model A Director's Duty of Independence. Texas Law Review 67: 1351-1464.
Pargendler, Mariana. 2012. State Ownership and Corporate Governance. Fordham Law Review 80: 2917-2973.
Pargendler, Mariana. 2018.The Role of the State in Contract Law: The Common-Civil Law Divide. Yale Journal of International Law 43: 143-189.
Pistor, Katharina, Yoram Keinan, Jan Kleinheisterkamp and Mark D. West. 2002. The Evolution of Corporate Law: A Cross-Country Comparison. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 23:791-871.
Pistor, Katharina, Yoram Keinan, Jan Kleinheisterkamp and Mark D. West. 2003. Evolution of Corporate Law and the Transplant Effect: Lessons from Six Countries. The World Bank Research Observer 18: 89-112.
Puchniak, Dan W. and Kon Sik Kim. 2017. Varieties of Independent Directors in Asia: A Taxonomy. SSRN Electronic Journal 1-31.
Roe, Mark J.. 1996. Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics. Harvard Law Review 109: 641-668.
Walker, John, Susanna Khouri and Wayne Attrill. 2009. Funding Criteria for Class Actions. UNSW Law Journal 32(3): 1036-1054.
Wang, Wallace Wen-Yeu and Chen Jian-Lin. 2008. Reforming China’s Securities Civil Actions Lessons from PSLRA Reform in the U.S. and Government-Sanctioned Non-Profit Enforcement in Taiwan. Columbia Journal of Asian Law 21: 115-160.
Watson, Alan. 1978. Comparative Law and Legal Change. Cambridge Law Journal 37: 313-336.
Watson, Alan. 1981. Society’s Choice and Legal Change. Hofstra Law Review 9:1473-1484.
Welsh, Michelle and Vince Morabito. 2014. Public v. Private Enforcement of Securities Laws: An Australian Empirical Study. Journal of Corporate Law Studies 14:39-78.
Whincop, Michael. 1997. Of Fault and Default: Contractarianism as a Theory of Anglo-Australian Corporate Law. Melbourne University Law Review 21(1): 187-236.
Shao, Ching-Ping. 2014. Representative Litigations in Corporate and Securities Laws by Government-Sanctioned Nonprofit Organizations: Lessons from Taiwan, Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 45:58-93.
Tsai, Chang-hsien and Yen-nung Wu. 2018. What Conflict Minerals Rules Tell Us about the Legal Transplantation of Corporate Social Responsibility Standards without the State: From the United Nations to the United States to Taiwan. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 38:233-284.
Veasey, E. Norman. 1990. Duty of Loyalty: The Criticality of the Counselor's Role. The Business Lawyer 45(4): 2065-2081.
（四） 其他
Bruner, Christopher M.. 2020. Method of Comparative Corporate Governance. University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-20. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3520817
Boyer, Robert. 1993. Convergence Hypothesis Revisited: Globalization But Still the Century of Nations?, Econpapers. Available at https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cpmcepmap/9403.htm.
Australian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. 1989. Report on the Social and Fiduciary Duties and Obligations of Company Directors (1989). Available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/pre1996/directors/index