透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.90.236.179
  • 學位論文

論風險社會下的環評制度與法院—司法系統與社會脈絡的相互建構

EIA Law and the Court in the Risk Society—The Mutual Construction of the Court system and Social Context

指導教授 : 周桂田
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


在環境影響評估制度受到相當關注的今日,學界對於此套制度運作的檢討與論述亦出現了相當大的重視,而關於環評制度運作的探討,除了在立法論層次上進行制度設計與制度興革的論述之外,另一個相當重要的問題面向,則為法院應如何站在司法審查的角度來適用、操作這一部法律。從環評判決所出現的矛盾中,我們也發現,除了概念法學的邏輯之外,關於法院在環評制度中應如何適切扮演自己角色,包括了應如何調整當事人適格的界定,以及面對專業環評決定應如何調整審查態度,事實上會關涉到兩個重要的面向,第一是在現代風險社會下「環境風險評估」的政治、社會意義為何;第二則是建構台灣在專家、公民社會、政治與資本彼此間的互動與發展脈絡。司法系統如何在環境風險評估之平台上,適當回應本土政治、經濟與社會情勢,即需要站在這兩個議題面向的理解基礎上,此亦為本文的研究目的。 從風險社會理論的角度而言,本文觀察到台灣分別在社會與政治系統出現了兩個互為矛盾的發展脈絡,一方面,社會大眾對風險之感知與意義已產生了重要變化,科學與專業不再能成為禁錮民眾的武器。相對地,社會發展出對專家政治、威權文化與知識壟斷性的質疑與解放,因而產生了環境決策上的民主參與以及風險溝通的社會需求,這也是環評制度的關鍵功能承載;但另一方面,從全球化風險發展路徑以及經濟全球化的競爭關係中,台灣作為新興工業國家,其工業化時程縮短於數十年之內完成,卻又未如歐美國家擁有上百年的公民社會歷史傳統,因而在弱勢的公民社會與環境組織之發展下,呈現出政治、經濟力量獨大的局面,此一政治發展脈絡抑制了風險溝通與民主參與環境決策的空間,並扭曲、弱化了環評法所應發揮及承載的制度性功能。 這兩個互為矛盾的發展脈絡皆濃縮、充分展現於環境影響評估的制度平台上,現今諸多關於環評制度的運作現況之批判,尤其在重大開發案之環評程序中時常出現外在政治力、經濟力干預以及資訊遭受扭曲、隱匿的現象,事實上可以置於此二個互為矛盾的發展脈絡下予以理解。也正是在出現此一複雜的政治、社會發展糾葛的情形下,使得法院在捍衛制度尊嚴的原則下,如何適切的扮演司法控制與監督之角色,即成為需要進一步探討的政策與價值選擇之問題。 本文指出,面對環評之專業性行政決定,司法應如何設定自身角色與功能,關鍵會在於行政權正當性的理念反思上,亦即,從台灣的政治、社會脈絡發展觀察,單純以國會法律授權控制(傳送帶模式)以及行政資源專業性的功能論思考(專家模式),尚不足充分成為賦予行政權在專業行政決定上的正當性基礎來源。相對的,參與模式對於行政決策的民主參與、風險溝通以及程序理性的追求,會成為行政權獲取正當性基礎的必要條件,因此在環評程序中,賦予居民或團體完整的程序參與地位以及程序的獨立權能有其迫切性。此反應在法院的環評司法審查上,一方面,本文主張法院應放寬當事人適格的門檻,使其不限縮於法律所保護的權利或利益上,另一方面,則可參考美國司法判決所發展出的禁止恣意、武斷原則以及嚴格的程序審查標準,使法院能充分發揮司法控制與監督的功能,來促成行政決策的程序理性與風險溝通機能。

並列摘要


Environmental impact assessment system was very concerned about today. On the operation of the EIA system, in addition to legislation on the level of the system design and system reforms, another very important issue is the role of court and how the court operates this law from the perspective of judicial review. From the EIA decision of contradictions by the court, we also found that, besides the concept of law of logic, how the court play their role appropriately, including how to adjust the definition of standing, as well as the face of professional environmental assessment decision by the administrative agency, will concern two important aspects. The first one is the political and social significance of "environmental risk assessment" under the modern risk society. The second one is the construction of development context and interaction of the experts, civil society, politics and capital. How the judicial system responses appropriately to Taiwan political, economic and social situation on the environmental risk assessment platform? We have to stand on the basis of understanding of the two issues. From the perspective of risk society theory, we’ve observed that there are two mutually contradictory development contexts in social and political system of Taiwan. On the one hand, the public perception of risk and significance has produced important changes, and people are no longer confined by science and experts. In contrast, people began to challenge expert politics, authoritarian culture and the monopoly of knowledge, resulting in the social needs of democratic participation in environmental decision-making and risk communication, and this is the key institutional task of EIA law. But on the other hand, from the view of the development path of the globalization risks and competition in economic globalization, Taiwan, as a newly industrialized countries, reduced its schedule of industrialization in the decades to complete, but it’s not like the European countries, whose civil societies had several centuries of historical traditions. Thus under the weak civil society and environmental organization development context, the political and economic forces dominate the Taiwan political decision-making system. This political context inhibited the development of risk communication and democratic participation in environmental decision-making space, and distorting, weakening the institutional task which EIA law should perform. These two mutually contradictory development contexts were fully demonstrated in the environmental impact assessment system space. Today many criticisms of the EIA institution, especially in the case of the EIA process is often intervened by political and economic forces and the distortion of information, in fact, it can be placed on the two mutually contradictory development contexts to be understood. When the complex political and social development entanglement appears, it is the point that how the court system should play the appropriate role of judicial control and supervision. This paper points out that the setting of judicial roles and functions will rely on the reflection of legitimacy of executive power when the court face the professional administrative decisions. That is, from the observation of Taiwan's political, social context, the legal authority of Congress (transmission model) and the functions of administrative professional sources on the thinking of function theory(expert mode) can’t give the executive power fully basis of legitimacy. In contrast, democratic participation, risk communication, and procedural rationality in administrative decision-making (participation model) will become the necessary conditions for the legitimacy of the executive power. Therefore, in the EIA process, it is necessary to give residents or civil groups the full status of participation in the proceedings and the independent procedure right. This reflected in the judicial review of the EIA, on the one hand, this paper claims that court should relax the threshold of standing to be not limited by the criteria of legally protected rights or interests. On the other hand, it could refer to U.S. judicial review, the court should adopt procedure hard look doctrine and require the executive's decision can not be arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion, allowing the court to give full play to judicial control and oversight functions and to facilitate administrative procedure rationality and risk communication functions.

參考文獻


周桂田(2003),<從「全球化風險」到「全球在地化風險」之研究進路:對貝克理論的批判思考>,台灣社會學刊第三十一期,頁153-188。
周桂田(1996),<自由主義、社群主義或強烈民主--簡介「強烈民主」>,《台灣社會學刊》十九期,頁219-228。
最高行政法院98年度判字第475號判決
最高行政法院98年度判字第475號判決(新店安康掩埋場案)
何明修(2001),<台灣環境運動的開端:專家學者、黨外、草根(1980-1986)>,台灣社會學第二期,頁97-162。

延伸閱讀