本文首先以司法院釋字第 587 號作成之後所衍生的問題出發，探討以婚生否認之訴為手段來落實子女血緣認知權保障的不足之處。該釋字以承認子女獲知其血統來源，確定其真實父子身分，為其人格發展的重要核心，而應受憲法保障，進而認為子女應有獨立提起婚生否認之訴的權利，然而因此卻造成子女身分安定性被破壞等諸多缺失。於是本文進一步思考是否有以其他管道來落實此一子女血緣認知權之可能性，並以比較法的方式作進一步的闡釋，分別以德國在 2008 年立法所通過的親子血緣闡明權之相關規定，與瑞士在歐洲人權法院裁判中敗訴的案件為例，說明歐洲人權法院在保障子女血緣認知權上的發展，以及德瑞立法者在正視該權利之本質後所提出的因應之道。最後，再次檢討釋字第 587 號之內容，希望能藉由對於比較法的說明與分析，省思我國關於親子關係建立的原理原則，並能重新思索「子女血緣認知權」在我國法制上的意義與重要性。

Starting from discussing the problems related to J.Y. Interpretation No. 587, this article explores the deficiency in applying the disavowal of legitimacy to secure a child’s right to identify his/ her blood filiations. The Interpretation recognizes that a child’s right to identify his/ her blood filiations and to ascertain his/ her paternity is concerned with the right to personality and shall be protected by the Constitution. The Interpretation goes further to rule that a child should have the right to bring an action for disavowal of paternity. However, this article argues that the rule established by the Interpretation might cause the problem of unsettling the child’s identity. As a result, this article attempts to consider the possibility of securing a child’s right to identify his/ her blood filiations by other instruments. Using the 2008 legislation of a child’s right to clarify paternity in Germany and the Europe Court of Human Rights case of Jäggi v. Switzerland as examples for comparative law analysis, this article elaborates on the development of protection of a child’s right to identify his/ her blood filiations in the Europe Court of Human Rights case law and demonstrates how the Germanic and Swiss legislators implement the right based on their interpretation of its nature. Finally, based on the discussion of J.Y. Interpretation No. 587 and the comparative law analysis, this article attempts to reflect on the rule of establishing paternity and to explore the meaning and significance of ‘a child’s right to identify his/her blood filiations’ in Taiwanese law.