多元移植與民主轉型過程中我國環評司法審查之發展 -一個以回應本土發展脈絡為目的之比較法分析

A Contextual Analysis of Taiwan’s Multi-origin Legal Transplantation in the Process of Democratic Transition: The Development of Judicial Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Decisions

張英磊(Ying-Lei Charles Chang)

指導教授 ： 葉俊榮

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/博士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.02217

摘要

論 文 摘 要
在我國民主轉型初期所制定的環境影響評估法，運作迄今已經成為各種開發案有關環境考量的重要關卡。在目前環評程序運作中，形成大多數開發案以「有條件通過第一階段環評」之運作模式，此一發展導致環保團體之不滿，結合開發案附近居民提起訴訟。本文首先觀察四個有關第一階段環評結論的司法訴訟案例中所產生的法律概念爭議，觀察我國有關環評之司法案例中論述形成之過程，以及所顯現的問題。爭議的議題焦點可整理為如下之重點：
1、 環評結論之司法審查時點：第一階段環評通過之結論是否為行政處分?
2、 請求環評結論司法審查人之資格範圍：開發案附近居民是否取得訴權(得否經由環評法之規定取得主觀公權利)，得對於開發案通過第一階段環評提起行政救濟?
3、 對於環評結論司法審查之標準：面對由行政官員以及專家、學者委員會組成之環境影響評估審查委員會(以下簡稱環評審查委員會)所做成之決定，法院應以何標準對之加以審查(是否為不確定法律概念、有無判斷餘地等)?
本文觀察這些爭議部分起因於德式行政法概念體系與美式環評程序與制度之設計背後的理念差異。而此種理念差異在對於人民與國家之間的關係，以及行政與司法權之間的關係產生不同的認知與期待。而進一步的觀察，會發現台灣環評制度的設計迥異於德國與美國，而此種差異應如何被分析與評價。是本論文作為觀察台灣法學論述發展與進行跨國比較研究之焦點議題。
為了解影響我國有關環評之法學論述發展的外國法制原貌，以及其制度設計與司法實務如何影響我國法學論述，有必要回顧影響我國最深之德國與美國法制，並加以比較。然而在從事比較之前，必須先檢討的是比較法應如何進行。本文透過整理歐美國家有關比較法的文獻，發現歐美國家所進行之比較法，目的在於理解差異，然而我國所謂的比較法方法，其運作的結果是消弭我國與西方的差異。本文認為我國的比較法研究本身其實是一種法律移植之活動，進而整理有關法律移植理論之討論。
比較法作為台灣法學界思考的主要方法已行之有年。而觀察其思考之結構，主要以介紹外國法制(最常見者為德國、日本與美國)之概念或制度，並作為批判我國現行法制或是司法實務之基礎。然而，何以挑選該國法制?又該國之社會狀況與該法制所欲處理的問題，與我國所面對者是否相同? 則多不見進一步之論述。本文先整理歐、美法學界對於跨國法制之間如何進行比較研究之討論。其方法論之視角可分類為功能學派、脈絡學派與論述分析學派。功能學派預設每個社會都面臨相同或類似的問題，而以問題為單元比較各國相應的法律概念與制度，此一方法為歐美比較法學界之主流；脈絡學派強調法律制度與歷史發展、社會結構之相關性，認為對於法律制度與概念的理解，不能離開歷史與社會的脈絡；論述分析學派企圖另闢蹊徑，透過分析法律論述呈現背後的權力互動的關係，由權力互動機制與理解的差異，理解不同法制之間的異同。在西方法學界另一組觀察跨國之間法治發展的理論觀點為法律移植理論，本文介紹法律移植理論奠基者Allen Watson教授之觀點、德國法蘭克福大學的Gunther Teubner教授提出之「法律刺激物」理論、以及原籍阿根廷的美國UCLA大學教授Maximo Langer教授則提出「法律翻譯」理論。Maximo Langer教授認為被移植的制度需要參照原有法律系統取得其意義(翻譯)，然而移植的情境、脈絡與植入國對該法制(或是該國)的主觀態度，會影響此一翻譯的過程。本論文認為其觀察較為完整。本文以上述之理論視角，反思我國所謂「比較法方法」之論述模式。並建議透過論述分析觀察不同國家法律概念背後預設的權力互動模式，進行比較法之觀察。
本論文主張可以透過對於法律論述進行論點位元、論述結構以及論述社群的拆解與分析觀察此論述背後預設的權力互動結構，並就1、法律論述如何反映該國之權力互動結構；2、法律論述如何影響該國新生之權力互動結構之發展；3、以及這些外國的法律論述如何在我國經由受不同國家影響之法律社群之互動彼此衝突轉化，或是受到本土發展脈絡的轉化；本文並在最後嘗試提出以回應本土發展之脈絡為目標，運用由外國法取得之智識資源的解釋論。
為充分理解美國與德國環評制度之背景與運作，本文分別就兩國的環境運動與行政法對於環境運動之回應加以觀察。並介紹兩國的環評制度立法背景與程序設計，進而介紹兩國的環評司法審查實務見解之發展。
就美國法制之部分，本文先介紹1970年美國環境運動之發展，與美國環境行政法體系形成之歷程。其中NEPA與其規定的環境影響評估制度，以產生資訊作為一種管制手段。本文1970年代美國行政法多元主義之轉型加以理解此一程序型管制措施(以產生環境資訊為手段)背後的國家與社會關係。而大量環境立法之後，環保團體的訴訟策略，與法院的判決對於環評制度的運作扮演引導性的影響。本章依據程序審查：原告起訴適格與司法審查之時點(成熟性原則)；與實體審查：挑選對於門檻決定之審查與實體規範效力之有無加以討論。
就德國法制之部分，本文先介紹德國環境運動之發展，以及德國行政法體系如何回應環保團體之要求。本文以德國黑格爾式自由主義下國家與社會(人民)關係之觀點，理解行政法體系對於德國環境運動之回應。本文進一步以德國依據歐盟環評指令，施行環境影響評估法之制度設計與司法實務見解的發展。此一源於美國多元主義之理解的「程序型管制措施」，在德國強調實體保障的制度理念與運作下，經由司法實務之運作而被弱化。本文最後綜合比較德國法治國原則及美國依法而治原則背後的制度與理念背景。並由環保團體在此二種法治理念下，所面臨的制度環境條件之不同，以理解兩國法制之異同。本文發現，兩國雖然有類似的環評程序設計，然而其司法實務之發展卻截然不同。此一現象反映了兩國法律制度背後權力互動與理解結構之差異。
在透過對於美、德環評制度之理解下，觀察我國環評制度之設計與運作，會發現與美、德有極大之差異。本章透過我國環境運動與環境法制，觀察我國自威權時期至民主轉型進程中，行政法制內呈現的國家與人民關係之變動。在威權時期呈現行政權強勢主導、人民「以被治理者」自居的理解結構，呈現在我國威權時期的行政法制之中。然而，民主轉型初期大量的環境抗爭，是威權時期以來首次由人民挑戰政府既定政策之大規模集體活動，被視為公民社會形成之開端。此一運動催生了我國的環境法制。其中，環境影響評估法具有重要的地位。本文認為，環評法在環評審查委員會的特殊制度設計(分離型、具否決權、學者專家佔一半以上之成員組成)；以及公民參與程序的規範設計，反映了民主轉型時期對於法律制度特殊之需求。本文以民主轉型時期信任建立機制，理解我國與美、德制度不同之處。並提出：修復正義功能與公民形塑功能之觀點，細緻化前述信任建立機制之內涵。基於上述觀點，本文觀察現行的環評制度運作，提出了過於強調專業性論述，排除了其他規範需求的問題。並以「提升程序價值在我國行政法體系中之地位」作為司法解釋論建構之指導，分別就環評結論之司法審查時點；起訴適格之認定；與實體審查之標準提出建議。
本文之寫作目的並非以引介美國與德國之司法實務見解，提供我國「正確的」解答。而是企圖理解我國與外國之差異，由差異中解讀我國政治、社會發展脈絡所產生之秩序需求，並加以回應。本文認為看似技術性的法律概念解釋與司法實務見解之發展，其實是形塑建構我國民主政治發展過程中人民與國家關係之一部份。透過法學論述之發展，能發揮調整與回應權力互動與秩序發展需求之功能。筆者希望透過本文之研究，能使我國環評制度之運作能對於我國民主政治之鞏固與發展發揮積極之功能。

關鍵字

法律移植 ； 民主轉型 ； 環境影響評估 ； 司法審查 ； 比較法 ； 司法審查 ； 批判法學 ； 結構主義 ； 論述分析 ； 法律社會學 ； 法律人類學 ； 程序權 ； 參與

並列摘要

Abstract
Taiwan’s Environmental Assessment Act was enacted in the 1990s in response to mass protests that occurred during the early period of democratic transition. The design of the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure (hereafter referred to as the “EIA procedure”) of Taiwan was modeled after the American Environmental Impact Assessment procedure stipulated in the United States National Environmental Policy Act. However, the design of Taiwan’s EIA procedure has some significant differences with the United States’ EIA procedure. The most important differences can be identified as follows:
1) Taiwan’s review committee (hereafter referred to as the EIA committee) is composed of scholars(2/3) and bureaucrats(1/3) who are in charge of the EIA procedure. However, the United States’ EIA procedure is conducted by the leading agency in charge of the proposed action.
2) Taiwan’s EIA committee has veto power over the proposed action supported by the leading agency in charge of the proposed action. However, the United States’ EIA review is purely procedural. A negative conclusion of the EIA statement does not necessarily lead to a specific result in the final decision (e.g. rejection or modification of the proposed project).
The EIA procedure in Taiwan has become the main battlefield between pro-environmental and pro-development forces. The government considers the EIA procedure an impediment to economic development. More and more developmental proposals have been approved in the first stage of EIA review by the EIA committee. Since 1995, litigation has been brought by villagers living around the proposed development sites. These villagers are mobilized and supported by environmental groups.
Judgments of the above mentioned decisions have shown conflicting results and standards. Taiwan has transplanted Germany’s general administrative legal theories and codes into the basic structure and understanding of its administrative legal system. The decisions generated by the EIA procedure which are transplanted from the United States, with significant modification, are hard to analyze under the general administrative law system transplanted from Germany. I summarize the focal points of judicial review into three categories: 1) The Timing of Judicial Review: whether the court can review the decision of the EIA procedure before the final decision regarding the proposed action is made. 2) The Standing Requirement of Judicial Review: how to decide who has the right to litigate against the decisions of the EIA committee. 3) The Standard of Judicial Review in Substance: with which standard should the court review the decisions of the EIA committee?
Scholars have been introducing theories and judicial review practices with Germany and the United States as references. However, none of them can provide satisfactory and convincing answers to the above mentioned questions. I argue that the judicial review of EIA decisions in Taiwan provides a good opportunity to reflect upon the theory and practice of legal comparison and the phenomenon of legal transplantation.
Jurists in Taiwan have been accustomed to the idea that since we transplanted our legal system from the West (mainly Germany and America), we should also find the answers from Western theory and practice to keep the consistency of the system. However, the topic examined here clearly reflects the reality that Taiwan’s legal system has multiple sources of references and questions cannot be analyzed and answered by the “follow the origin where the law was transplanted” approach.
I contend that jurists in Taiwan should reflect upon the methodology of comparative law and legal transplantation, which simply considers foreign legal systems and judicial practices to be superior and, therefore, can be transplanted without further consideration.
I review the theories of comparative law and legal transplantation in the West. I briefly summarize theories of Comparative law (Functional School, Context School and Discourse Analysis School), and theories of legal transplantation (Alan Watson, Pier LaGrand, Gunter Teubner and Maximo Langer). I propose that the use of legal comparison in peripheral countries, like Taiwan, is different from its use in the West. In Taiwan, comparison of the local legal system with Western legal systems is used to criticize and modify the local legal system. This century-long practice has been implemented under an ideology that equates modernization with Westernization. It is a mechanism of legal transplantation that serves to eliminate differences instead of seeking to understand differences, which is the function of comparative law in the West. The Taiwan example shows the importance of context and consciousness in conducting legal comparison or transplantation. I further argue that a method of legal comparison that can identify the differences and provide solutions that fit with our local context should be adopted. I identify the discourse analysis approach, which analyzes the discourses within the Western legal system, and I find that identifying the power dynamics behind the transplanted system can provide insights into how to learn from the Western legal system without being dominated by it. By understanding how the discourses in the system define and serve the needs of certain power structures, we can utilize the discourses in response to our internal power dynamic.
Since the debates regarding the judicial review of the EIA decisions in Taiwan are mainly about the transplantation of the American and German legal discourses, the power dynamic structures behind the EIA system in the two countries should be investigated in order to understand the legal discourses in Taiwan. I review the history of the EIA system in the US in the context of responding to the demand of the environmental movement in the late 1960s and 1970s. Pluralism can be identified as the basic understanding behind the United States’ EIA procedure. The pluralist understanding considers the EIA procedure as an information generating process which can trigger interactions between government and conflicting social interests in the society. The standard of judicial review demonstrates the pluralist understanding. Regarding the timing of judicial review of EIA decisions, the claim of a defective EIA procedure is subjected to judicial review of the court without the final decision of the proposed action being made. As for the standing requirement, an EIA procedural defect related to individual interest provides the citizen a right to litigate. In comparison with the lenient procedural requirement of judicial review, the substantive standard of judicial review is relatively deferential to the agency in charge.
I further review Germany’s administrative law and the EIA system. The sophisticated conceptual system of German administrative law reflects the legal tradition of “Rechtstaat,” which presupposed state/society dualism and the ability/responsibility of defining and implementing public interests by the state organ (Parliament/administration/court). In this system the political participation should be generated in the process election. The will of the people should be expressed though the deliberation in the parliament. The purpose of people’s participation in the administrative decision-making procedure is for her/him to protect her/his personal right and provide information for the assessment of the administrative decision-makers. Procedural defects are considered irrelevant as long as the correctness of the substantive decision is not influenced. Under this strong substantive control and relatively weak procedural protection system, the implementation of the EU EIA directive, modeled after the United States’ EIA procedure, created a challenge to the system. The results of judicial review demonstrate the difference between the administrative legal system of the United States and Germany. Regarding the timing of judicial review, the BVerwG (the Federal Administrative Court of Germany) decided that the result of the EIA cannot be reviewed until the final decision of the proposed action has been made. The BVerwG considers the purpose of the EIA act to be protection of the general public and does not create a “subjective public right.” This means that defects within the EIA procedure does not create standing to a litigant. A defective EIA procedure is considered irrelevant as long as the substantive correctness of the final decision is not compromised. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove that without the procedural defect, the final decision should be decided in another way. The burden of proof requirement makes the challenge of EIA decisions against the agencies almost futile. I argue that the phenomenon should be explained by the fact that Germany has already set up a very strong environmental protection legislation through the spatial planning system and other licensing procedures before the transplantation of the EIA system. The planning system emphasizes in the comprehensive consideration negotiation between influential social actors on the general planning stage, and avoids adversarial confrontation in licensing procedure of the single installation. I identified the power dynamics behind the EIA system in Germany as reflecting the structure of corporatism and parliamentary democracy. In the social corporatist system important decisions are made in the abstract level through the negotiation between parties or hierarchical social institutions that have been recognized by the society as representative of different kinds of interest.
Based on the above observations, I argue that jurists in Taiwan should realize the currently developing judicial review of EIA decisions is actually constructing the state/society relationship in this stage of the democratic transition and consolidation. The design of the EIA system shows the context of democratization in Taiwan. The design of the EIA review committee and the veto power assigned to it is a mechanism of trust-building that was created in response to mass environmental protests during the early period of democratic transition in the 1980s. The protests were not only demanding more environmental protection but also venting the anger towards the then authoritarian way of governance. Neither the United States’ or Germany’s EIA systems reflect this need in their designs. I argue the judicial review of Taiwan should learn the differences among different systems. I propose that we should bricolage the discourses in the German and American legal system to respond to the context of our democratic development instead of considering the foreign legal system as natural-rule-like criteria to judge or guide our legal development.
Legal systems cannot be compared without understanding the historical context and the political/social system in which it is embedded. The debate over which system is superior and should be followed is meaningless in this sense. The ultimate criteria for jurists in Taiwan should be our own social/political/historical context and needs. The purpose of this analysis is to recontexualize the reified foreign legal knowledge with its power dynamic structure and historical development in order to find the possibility of utilizing foreign legal discourses as intellectual repertoire for legal arguments in Taiwan instead of as criteria for assessing and reforming our system.

並列關鍵字

Legal Transplanation ； Democratic Transition ； Environmental Impact Assessment ； Judicial Review ； Comparative Law ； Critical Legal Studies ； Struturalism ； Discourse Analysis ； Legal Sociology ； Legal Antropology ； Procedural Right ； Participation

參考文獻

李佳達 (2009)。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。

何明修（2004）。＜文化、構框與社會運動＞，《台灣社會學刊》，頁157-199。

林子傑 （2006）。《人之圖像與憲法解釋》。國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。

黃若羚（2007）。《轉型正義與法院之功能角色》。國立台灣大學法律研究所。

葉俊榮（2002）。《面對行政程序法》。台北：元照。