當原住民族權利之發展進入第三代人權階段，就必須面對族群自決權的實現問題。依據2007年「聯合國原住民族權利宣言」，原住民族的集體自決權是由集體性文化權利、傳統領域權，以及在政治、經濟、社會和文化發展上的自治所組成。台灣於2005年所通過之「原住民族基本法」，即是肯認上述自決權利的根本大法。「原住民族基本法」在權利內容上包含了傳統領域、傳統生物多樣性知識及智慧創作擁有自主治理之權能，也允許台灣原住民族就其生活方式、習俗、服飾、社會經濟組織型態、資源利用方式、土地，擁有自主決定其利用與管理模式之權利。而原住民族集體同意權之行使，則是實現這些集體權利的重要途徑。原住民族集體同意權機制應包括合意程序、管理機構與監督基準等實踐上述自決權所必要之內容，無法逕行抄襲自既有的市民社會公法規範。台灣目前已有十六個官方認定之原住民族，惟彼此在傳統政治組織與文化慣習上存有重大差異。如何建立該機制之普遍性與最低標準規範，並稽核實踐成果，都是原住民族集體同意權法制化時所必須面臨的挑戰。本文首先探討原住民族集體同意權制度建構之理論，其次比較台灣現行法規與草案中之既有規定，並從落實原住民族自治權之角度提出批判。接續以原住民族委員會2011－2013年「原住民族傳統智慧創作保護試辦計畫」之執行為例，討論原住民族族群、部落、家族凝聚社群共識之多元實踐，證立開放式集體同意機制之可實施性。最後提出政策上的建議。

When the rights of indigenous peoples have advanced into the stage of the third generation, the issue of group self-determination becomes pragmatically imminent. Pursuant to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the group self-determination is conjured with the collective cultural rights, indigenous title and autonomy over political, economic, social and cultural development. The Indigenous Peoples Fundamental Law of Taiwan inaugurated in 2005 recognizes the above group self-determination rights, which includes, namely, the indigenous title, the natural rights over their biodiversity knowledge and intellectual creations. The Fundamental Law allows the indigenous peoples to self-determine their mode of living, customs, wardrobes, economic organization, land and natural resources. To implement the group self-determination, the indigenous peoples need to be granted with the collective consent mechanism. The mechanism of collective consent is designed to implement group selfdetermination and shall encompass both the procedural and organizational aspects, which cannot simply copy the established regimes of the civil society. Reckoning that there are 16 ethnic groups on the Island whose political traditions and customs are heavily diversified, a minimum standard of infrastructure and steering system are therefore needed. This article is intending to review the theories of the indigenous collective consent, then to compare with the related regulations of Taiwan in terms of the implementation of indigenous self-autonomy. The test results of the 2013 Moot Program of ITICPA will then be served to evidence the practicability of the designed mechanism. A critical suggestion will also be included in the conclusion.