本論文的目的是在於探討:環境立法所對於環境衝突所造成的影響,是否新的環境管理制度能夠促成衝突的制度化,如果答案不是的話,其原因又是爲何。本文探討的個案是於1992年通過立法的公害糾紛處理法,特別是針對這套措施對於公害求償事件的影響。首先,我們要指出這項法案如何在民主化與環境運動的雙重衝擊之下提出,也就是政府部門如何在外部壓力下提出一套控制衝突範圍的因應之道。其次的任務在於,對公害糾紛處理制度到1998年底爲止的實際運作進行分析,我們認爲這項新措施並沒有達成所設想的目標:大部分的求償案件仍是以體制外的方式運作,而不是依循法律規定的途徑。對於這種現象,我們認爲主要原因在於該制度本身的設計問題,並沒有真正的面對污染者與被污染者的不對稱關係,使得受害者並不願意採行法律調解程序。在本文最後,我們將指出另一種構思體制外衝突的解決之道,也就是環境保護協定。
In this essay, our investigation dealt with the effect on environmental conflict by new legislation, i.e., whether the new environmental regulatory institution can bring about the institutionalization of conflict. Our focus was on the Public Nuisance Disputes Mediation Law (1992), and its impact on the pollution claim makings. First, we pointed out the external context that gave impetus to this new institution. Democratization and its concomitant rise of environmental movements were clearly the main causes. With the aim to restrict the uncertainty and scope of grassroots anti-pollution protests, the state cannot but incorporate the newly risen grievances. Secondly, we analyzed how this mediation mechanism actually worked. Contrary to the claim of bureaucrats, the mediation mechanism performed poorly. We argued that the main reason consisted in the inability to re-address the unsymmetrical relation between polluters and victims. The pollution victims were not sufficiently protected is this new law, therefore, they continued to resort to the rule-breaking protests. In the end, we suggest another legal procedural to institutionalize the conflicts. Environmental protection agreement, with greater empowerment for the local community, can perform better and is closer to the ideal of ecological democracy.