環境影響評估法爭議問題之研究—以美國法制之比較為中心

本文研究目的在於釐清我國與美國就環境影響評估法制有何異同，以了解該國法制是否能作為我國法在處理環評事件中司法審查界限的借鏡。例如：1.美國法上備製環境影響說明書與評估書之主體為行政機關。但在我國卻是開發單位，段乃採書面審查，則前開環評書件的品質甚有疑慮。2.我國並設專職之環境影響評估審查委員會決定開發行為對環境影響是否重大，此與美國係由相當於我國的目的事業主管機關綜合考量經濟效益與環境影響之設計不同，此設計將使得環委會失去向民眾解釋經濟效益與環境影響間衡平後的結果，且要求其純粹地由環保觀點做決定，亦有違現實。3.美國法制上環境影響評估制度僅係為了確保行政機關決策時確實將環保納入考量，與我國將環評結果即環評審查結論認定為行政處分而具有強制力的設計並不相同。本文並整理了最近行政法院有關環評事件的重要判決並以司法審查在其中扮演的角色為主軸，討論法院在所謂有判斷餘地的案例事實中，應如何審查行政機關之決定。這包括在甚麼樣的條件下司法審查應受限制，及例外不受限制的狀況和理由。本文首先就判斷餘地之理論為介紹，最後並採取法規授權論，同時，並由法規授權理論開展接下來的論述。最後並在結論裡提出在環評事件中，司法應如何審查決定，亦即完整的論述其應受限制之原因和其得為審查的理論基礎和態樣。

關鍵字

環境影響評估審查結論；司法審查；環境影響評估書

並列摘要

This is a study on the environmental Impact Assessment legislation . First , I started with studying on U.S.A Environmental Impact Assessment legislation because basically it’s where our Environmental Impact Assessment Act comes from . We can know that by the words we use in Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the procedure we set for the review conclusion prepared by the competent authority following the review of the environmental impact statement and environmental impact assessment report . Second , I studied our EIA legislation , after all we have to fallow it anyway , after working on leading cases just came out lately and regulations implanting the EIA Act, I found that actually there are some crucial points which are very different from U.S.A legislation and it makes a whole different story . In U.S.A , they ask responsible Agencies to prepare Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) , here , we ask developers to prepare it and they could be anyone , EIA Act only asks Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee to review EA by the paper they hand in and I think the quality of the EA could be a problem . Another point is that we force Environmental Impact Assessment Review Committee to consider the effect on environment and economic profit separately , in this way , the Committee will have no chance to explain to people how they balance the two factors which always arise the issue that we should approve the development activity or not . By studing on the cases came out lately in EIA Act , I found Judicial reviw of discretion is the core of the issue we have to deal with , “should a judge replace Agencies’s dicision with his ” so I spent pretty much time on it and came out some ideas .

並列關鍵字

environmental impact statement ； Judicial reviw ； the review conclusion

參考文獻

陳愛娥，如何明確適用「法律明確性原則」？—評司法院大法官釋字第五四五號解釋，月旦法學第88期，2002年9月。

李佳達，我國環境影響評估審查制度之實証分析，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2009年6月。

Larry W. Canter，黃光輝譯，環境影響評估，美商麥格羅希爾國際股份有限公司，1998年5月2版。

劉鑫楨，論裁量處分與不確定法律概念，五南出版社，2005年3月初版。

黃光輝，台灣環境影響評估法制最佳化謅議，律師雜誌第292期，2004年1月。

國際替代計量

環境影響評估法爭議問題之研究—以美國法制之比較為中心

未授權

主題瀏覽