二次大戰後，中華民國政府從日本手中接收台灣，由於當時直接將在中國所制定的中華民國刑法典，適用於台灣這塊土地上，所以許多行為的入罪，與犯罪定義的出現，就是在漢族觀點下，未經原住民族的同意，即直接適用在原住民族的身上。一直以來，原住民族因為原、漢文化衝突而導致犯罪者，不勝枚舉，而這些案件背後所隱藏的族群歧視，與文化差異的問題，一直未被重視與凸顯。
晚近學說上逐漸引進討論的文化辯護或稱為文化抗辯概念，源自於美國，目前學說上，針對文化抗辯的研究方向，主要都是聚焦在被告是否得以主張，欠缺故意或罪責，要求減輕刑責、或是無罪的判決；也就是說比較集中在刑事實體、或是程序法上，而且已經有一定的研究成果。但是目前國內文獻，針對文化抗辯，甚少有直接上溯到憲法上找尋其憲法上正當性的立基點。針對此一源自於刑事法上的概念。本論文嘗試先從憲法的角度，作為切入點。如果文化抗辯在我國憲法框架中，具備一定的憲法上正當性，甚至與基本權利有重大的關聯，則此時，基於基本權的垂直效力與水平效力，文化抗辯在民事法領域與行政法領域仍應有一定適用的空間，故此時討論的重點，毋寧應由文化抗辯是否可以在民事或行政法領域適用，變成文化抗辯應該如何在民事或行政法領域適用。

The government of the Republic of China took over Taiwan from Japan after World War II. The Criminal Code of the Republic China was enacted in China, so many crimes and definitions were from the perspective of Han people. These crimes were directly applied to indigenous peoples without gaining their consent. There are countless cases of indigenous peoples committing crimes due to cultural conflict with Han people. However, the underlying racism and cultural differences are issues that have never been addressed.
Cultural defense is a concept that is gradually being discussed in recent theories, The concept originated in the United States. And recent studies on cultural defense mainly focus on whether or not the defendant may claim lack of intent or culpability as grounds for a sentence reduction or verdict of not guilty, i.e., the studies are concentrated in criminal law or procedural law and have already produced considerable research results. However, after reviewing domestic literature, studies rarely directly adopted a constitutional perspective in determining the legitimacy of cultural defense. Discussions on whether or not this concept that originated from criminal law can be directly. This study uses the constitution as an entry point. If cultural defense has a certain level of legitimacy in the constitutional framework of the R.O.C., or even be found to be significantly related to fundamental rights, then the cultural defense will be applicable in civil and administrative cases to a certain extent due to the horizontal effect and vertical effect of fundamental rights. If this turns out to be the case, discussions should not be on whether or not the cultural defense can be applied in civil cases or administrative cases, but rather how the cultural defense can be applied in civil cases and administrative cases .