本文探究戰後原住民／族正名動員史，範圍包含「山胞」正名為原住民的稱呼正名、各族別的族名正名、原住民個人的名字正名，以及中華民國行政區劃下的原住民地區地名正名。原住民／族如何理解、運用法律來為正名主張動員？法律又如何影響人們的論述框架使訴求獲得推展？本文以法律機會結構的改變作為歷史分期的依據，分別以1945年到原權會成立的1984年、原權會成立到1997年憲法承認集體權，以及集體權承認後至今（2019年）分期討論，並以史料分析的歷史探究法回答上述問題，此外，本文亦以批判種族理論有關法律建構種族的討論、利益聚合的視角檢驗正名行動的過程與成果。
原住民／族正名的想望來自污名、錯誤命名與恣意命名的傷害。本文發現原運組織化前的正名動員，主要動員議題為稱呼、名字正名，其中，地方自治法規範下的形式選舉要求及1954年省議會改採直接選舉的變革，共同擴張法律途徑。稱呼正名的主體以政治菁英為主，地方議會／代表會則與行政機關共同協力「山地同胞」名稱的成形，此際，法律途徑雖擴張但仍舊操持在統治集團手中，至1980年代黨外立委紛紛以「高山族」主體名稱提出草案，係有意識地採用原住民自我稱呼的主張。名字正名則以個人行政動員為主，舉凡用字謬誤、一家多姓等情形皆被挑戰，調整用字的情況容易的被接受，但涉及更改姓氏則曾被接受而後招致反對。
1984年原權會成立開啟集體動員的時期，促成原權會成立的黨外、長老教會軸線更於日後延續盟友的角色，提供資源、人力上的協助，黨外政黨化後尤然，將議題帶入立法院、國民大會。此外，憲法運動所開啟的法律途徑吸納原權會進入，在權利倡議上原權會雖無法外於憲法運動給予的框架，卻又回頭影響憲法運動對原住民權益的保障。名字正名則因國會全面改選所提供的法律途徑，將原先個人挑戰戶政機關的法外動員，逐步向立法遊說推移，1995年《姓名條例》的立法論爭引出多元的法律構框，顯現法律途徑的開啟既為倡議者所用，亦為保守者所用，但統治集團不再能如上一個時期操持法律途徑。地名正名則因湯英伸事件（1987）的發酵，人們將原住民污名感受與吳鳳鄉正名連結，並成為原權會解嚴後首個正名議題，亦因著地方自治而來的權限歸屬，地名正名的戰場從中央轉回地方，吳鳳鄉境內各村舉辦村民大會，由下而上討論吳鳳鄉更名。
有別於此，1997年憲法增修條文確立原住民族集體權後，2000年的政黨輪替，人權立國成為政府的執政方針，輔以吸納《聯合國原住民族權利宣言》草案的新夥伴關係協定及再肯認協定，法律資源開始逐漸多樣。族名正名在因為族稱不妥而來的正名除了仰賴政府協助舉辦座談會外，原住民族以族群為單位創辦的雜誌、週刊成為重要的對話場域，法外動員是主要的動員模式，以之凝聚共識，而從已核定族別獨立成族的正名行動觀察，當民族認定漸漸出現不成文的標準程序後，後續正名的族別遂逐漸放棄立法遊說，行政遊說的對象也開始限縮至特定部門，法外動員的型態則因專家學者認定模式而成為必要之動員。
此外，名字正名在二度修法後擴張原名表彰的方式，重新提供原住民個人行政遊說的法律資源，但行政機關對於尊重文化慣俗與否是變動的，由誰來定義傳統、傳統是否不可變動則是被懷疑的。最後，地名正名則因原運上一個時期創設的法律機會結構－行政院原住民委員會，原來的運動者進入原民會成為行政盟友，開啟山川傳統名稱的調查，但2007年那瑪夏鄉（區）的正名不真正由下而上，反而仰賴地方機關主張正名的原住民行政人員推行，其後的結果反映出與吳鳳鄉正名不同的情緒反應。
本文發現無論是憲法增修條文的訂定、《姓名條例》的修正、族名正名的成果皆符合優勢群體與弱勢群體的利益聚合因而獲得進展，包含藉由接受原住民一詞來取消其他權利保障與破除族群分類；姓名的放寬使用，仍舊是不使漢人不便的放寬，僅以羅馬拼音表彰名字的倡議始終被拒，族名正名則使欲正名族別需符合國家所要的族群特色，並實質上以未讓原住民人口增加的族別認定進行。

This thesis explores the history of post-war Taiwan indigenous peoples’ legal mobilization to claim indigenous names and discusses four types of names including the name of the indigenous peoples, each ethnic group, individual indigenous people, and the place where indigenous people are based on the administrative division of the Republic of China. How do the indigenous peoples use the law to mobilize　rectification? How does the law influence people''s discourse framework to advance claims? Legal opportunity structures were used to distinguish every chapter in this thesis. The second chapter is from 1945 to the establishment of the Alliance of Taiwan Aborigines (ATA) in 1984, the Chapter 3 is from 1984 to the constitutional recognition of collective rights in 1997, and the Chapter 4 is from 1997 till now (2019). The historical method was used to answer the above questions. In addition, the basic tenets of critical race theory regarding legal construction of race and the interest convergence were also used to examine the process and results of the action of claiming indigenous names.
Stigma, misnaming, and arbitrary naming work together to stimulate indigenous people to take action for rectification. In chapter 2, this thesis found that the legal mobilization mainly operated on the topic of the name of the indigenous peoples and the individual name of indigenous people. The local autonomy law and the direct elections in the provincial council in 1954 expanded the legal approach. The rectification of the name of “indigenous people” was primarily driven by political elites, with local parliaments and administrative authority working together to shape the name of “mountain compatriots”（山地同胞）. While the legal approach was expanded, it was still dominated by the ruling authority until non-party Members of Legislative Yuan proposed in succession bills that adopted the name of “mountain aborigines”（高山族）and consciously accepted the claim of the indigenous people. The rectification of the name of “individual indigenous people” was, on the other hand, mainly driven by an individual. Challenges were made against the wrong use of words, multiple last names within the same family and other occasions. People were more willing to accept adjustment of words, while the change of last names was once accepted but incurred opposition afterward.
In 1984, the establishment of the ATA opened up the age of collective mobilization. Non-party figures and Presbyterian Church that facilitated the establishment of the association continued to act as allies and provided resources. This is particularly true when the non-party was organized into DPP, which brought the agenda into the Legislative Yuan and the National Assembly. In addition, the legal approaches initiated by the constitutional movement allowed the entering of the ATA. Though the association had to conform to the structure under the constitutional movement, it made impacts on the constitutional movement in terms of the protection of indigenous people’s rights. With the legal approach offered by the comprehensive reelection of congress, the rectification of the name of “individual indigenous people” was able to push the individual challenge against the registration authority, the extra-judicial legal mobilization, towards the legislative lobbying. The legislative disputes over the Name Act（姓名條例）in 1995 gave rise to the diversified legal framing, which shows that the opening of the legal approach was both adopted by the advocates and the conservatives. The ruling authority could no longer dominate the legal approach as in the previous phase. With the agitation created by the Event of Ying-Shen Tang (1987)（湯英伸事件）, people connected the stigma felt by the indigenous people with the rectification of the name of Wu Feng Village（吳鳳鄉）, which made the rectification of the name of “the place where indigenous people are” the first rectification issue in the Post-Martial Law Period. Together with the authority attribution following the local autonomy, the battlefield of the rectification of the name of “the place where indigenous people are” changed from the central government to the local, which can be demonstrated by the fact that villagers held meetings all over the village and discussed the rectification in a bottom-up approach.
Aside from the above, the 1997 amendment of the Constitution established the collective rights of the indigenous people. With the 2000 party alteration, it became clear that Taiwan is a nation founded upon the principle of human rights.Also, with the new-partnership agreement and re-acknowledgment agreement that incorporated the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the legal resources began to diversify. The rectification of the name of each ethnic group arose from the concerns over the inappropriateness of the ethnic group name. This rectification not only relied on the workshops co-organized by the government, magazines and periodicals founded by the indigenous people based on the unit of the ethnic group also enhanced important dialogues. The extra-judicial legal mobilization was the primary mode to build consensus. Observing the rectification movement of those ethnic groups with approved ethnic group names, it is clear when the determination of ethnic group becomes an unwritten rule, other ethnic groups will then discard legislative lobbying and limit their administrative lobbying to certain departments. The extra-judicial legal mobilization then became a necessity due to the fact that it is a recognized mode deemed by the specialists and scholars.
Additionally, the rectification of the name of “individual indigenous people”, with two amendments of legislation, expanded the ways of manifestation of indigenous names and once more offered legal resources for indigenous individuals to conduct administrative lobbying. However, the administrative authority’s attitude towards whether to respect culture and customs is in flux. Who should be the one to determine a tradition? Does a tradition remain unchangeable? These questions are in doubt. Last, due to the legal opportunity structure created by the last phase of the indigenous people movement－Council of Indigenous Peoples－the original movement participants entered into the council, became administrative allies and pushed the progress of the investigation for traditional names of mountains and rivers. Yet, the rectification of the name of Na Ma Xia Village (District) （那瑪夏鄉(區)）didn’t come from bottom up, rather, it relied on the indigenous officials in the local authority to drive the movement and prompted different reactions as that from Wu Feng Village Movement.
This thesis discovered that, regardless of whether it is the enactment of the amendments of the Constitution, the amendments of the Name Act, the result of the rectification of the ethnic group name was aligned with the interests of both the privileged and the vulnerable and could thus obtained progress, which includes the acceptance of the term of “indigenous people” to cancel the other right protection and to break down the ethnic group classification; the relaxation of the use of name only to the extent that it does not pose an inconvenience to the Han people so that the initiative of using only Pin-yin to manifest a name has always been declined. The rectification of the ethnic group name, on the other hand, necessitated the ethnic group in demand of rectification to conform to the ethnic group characteristics requested by the country and was essentially only conducted on the condition of not increasing the population of indigenous people.