日治之初，政治反抗者本於武?抗官傳統對抗日軍，殖民統治當局乃訴諸軍事??，繼而兼施法???，並以對西?庵事件的嚴酷判決作結。但一般人，則在法?體制內，對抗法???。按日本基於其殖民統治之需要，頒?部分具有近代性的刑事法，而台灣人僅能以子之矛，即近代性，攻子之盾，即日本政府之??國家??；民事法雖亦有一部分的法???性格，但台灣人相當能善用其中有?於人民者。於日治中期，台灣人政治?議者開始運用明治憲政體制所承認的臣民基本權?，謀求改善殖民地法???之道，但統治當局仍根據當時的國家法??壓制，?過像台灣議會請願運動?導者，僅有幾位遭法院判處幾個月的徒刑。對於如台灣共產黨般否定憲政體制者，殖民統治當局則施以強?較高的法???。於日治晚期，?經?十?法???鎮壓的台灣社會，已難以反抗國家權威。戰後接管台灣之?自中國的國民黨政府，基於仇日情緒及中國國族主義，漠視日治時期台灣?史，全然貶抑當時的法制。但是國民黨同樣以「?興基地」?把台灣人民當工具，以法???踐踏人民，於二二八事件??施日治初期才有的軍事??，使得許多具日治經驗的本?族群台灣人，反而肯定日本所帶?的法?秩序，且以某些本?族群菁英為主的政治反對陣營，亦採取「在?義體制內對抗?義」的作法。國民黨?像日本殖民者可從島外源源?斷輸入統治階層，只能一方面以法???壓制反對勢?，另一方面現地培養跟隨者，但仍擋?住自由民主的?潮，終於讓出掌握55?的中央?政部門執政權。於今，國民黨長期憑恃法???所傳播的?史評價，依然與從台灣人民觀點出發的其他?史評價並存，但無?如何，應譴責未?再出現任何形式的法???。

In the initial period of the Japanese colonial rule, Taiwanese resisters who frequently protested against the government by force in the past fought against the Japanese army as before. The Japanese authorities appealed to military violence and then “legal violence” to kill them. On the other hand, the general public resisted the legal violence of the colonial authorities within the legal framework. In consideration of the needs of colonial rule, the Japanese brought the criminal law with a certain degree of modernity to Taiwan. Accordingly, the Taiwanese can criticize the legal violence by the criterion of modernity. The civil law in Taiwan was also stipulated for the interests of colonial rulers, but the Taiwanese successfully employed it for their own benefit. In the middle period of the Japanese rule, the Taiwanese dissenters applied the provisions relating to fundamental rights in the Meiji Constitution to improve their legal status. Unfortunately, the colonial government still suppressed their political activities in accordance with the state law. Furthermore, those Taiwanese dissenters who objected The Chinese Nationalist government who took over Taiwan after the World War Ⅱ always ignored the colonial experiences that the native Taiwanese had and merely blamed the colonial law for its sewing for the colonialism, if those experiences were mentioned. Nevertheless, many native Taiwanese adopted positive attitudes toward the past colonial law on the ground that as the Japanese colonialists did before, the Chinese Nationalist government regarded the Taiwanese people as instrument to achieve the goal of the ruler, suppressed them with legal violence and sometimes appealed to military violence. Following the same strategy of “resisting unjust law within a unjust legal framework”, many native Taiwanese elite opposed to the Chinese Nationalist government. Unlike the Japanese colonialists, the Chinese Nationalist government was not able to recruit new members from their other country, and therefore finally terminated its fifty-five year rule in Taiwan in 2000. However, the historical appraisal relating to the Japanese period that has been spread widely by the Chinese Nationalist government with legal violence for a long time is still prevalent and competes with others that are based on the viewpoint of the Taiwanese people. At any event, legal violence is never allowed in the future the constitutional framework were severely punished by the Japanese law. Under the legal violence existing for several decades, the Taiwanese society could not but surrender to the authority of the state.