Abstract
In recent years, the controversy of eminent domain in Taiwan has sprung up all over the island, especially the controversy of “the zone expropriation” and taking for private use. Since eminent domain, the power to take private property for public use by a state, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property, could hardly harm people’s property rights, the definition of “public use”, which has been regarded as “public interests”, should be specific and clear, and so does its criteria. Otherwise the government power will be out of control. Through the research of judicial decision about public interests in eminent domain both in Taiwan and U.S.A, it could be concluded that modern courts tolerate very wide-ranging uses of eminent domain, and there is no theory or conceptual foundation from which meaningful standards for judicial review of public use issues might originate. In order to solve this problem, we may ponder it from an economic perspective, and define “public interests” through cost-benefit analysis case by case. Moreover, the subjective value of property should be taken into account, with the “from-direct-to-indirect, from concrete-to-abstract” model. In addition, due process of law in eminent domain should be well-formed to achieve the goal of the implementation of this model.