環境量能在法院的擴展：由司法裁判中當事人適格與司法審查密度進行觀察

The Extension of Environmental Capacity-Building in the Court: An Observation from the Perspectives of Standing and the Review Standards of the Administrative Court Decisions

葉貞汝(Chen-ju Yeh)

指導教授 ： 葉俊榮

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.00139

摘要

本文藉由「整體量化分析」與「焦點個案分析」等研究方法對於司法裁判進行觀察，以期發現法院在衡量環境保護及其他如經濟發展等價值時，所採取的立場是否有變動？影響法院判斷的因素為何？隨著「環境」定義的擴大、環境問題的全球化與複雜化、及台灣公民社會對於環境價值越來越重視，司法裁判的整體趨勢是否呼應著永續發展的趨勢，也擴展了法院的環境量能？觀察指標為「當事人適格」、「司法審查密度」，及受到上兩項指標所影響之「人民勝訴率」。
　　由「量化分析」可發現，「1999年至2006年」、「2007年」與「2008年至2012年6月」間，標的裁判在訴權、司法審查密度及人民勝訴率上呈現「擴展環境量能」的趨勢，這樣的趨勢是受到公民社會及法院對訴訟制度之反省所影響，「最高行政法院」並扮演了重要的推手地位。
　　在「焦點個案」分析中，本文發現在2005年開始，行政法院引用相關學理而逐漸放寬訴權，對於人民可主張之權利內涵在實質與程序面也更為充實，並發展出文化權、景觀權等次位階權利概念，而個案中更為細緻深入的實質審查判準也呼應到本文量化研究所得之結論。然而，由2010年後中科三期及中科四期案之發展，也可以看到法院擴展環境量能的腳步也不免因政治力之影響而受到撼動，不僅停止先前「放寬訴權」、「深入實質審查」的趨勢，甚至有更為限縮公民訴權、極鬆司法審查密度的退讓態度出現。
　　综合看來，隨著臺灣公民社會越趨成熟、越來越重視環境價值，司法透過法院裁判也隨之擴展環境量能，但這樣的趨勢在行政機關強勢政治力的介入下，仍不排除有退讓與動搖的可能；然而，在公民社會對於「永續發展」的希冀下，透過訴訟策略分進合擊，或者其他方式證明行政行為偏差不當，個案中行政法院的「自由心證」仍可能順著已建立的環境量能，成為持續朝向「永續發展」前進的「環境法院」！

關鍵字

環境量能 ； 當事人適格 ； 訴權 ； 司法審查密度 ； 環境權 ； 公民社會 ； 中科

並列摘要

In order to observe the Administrative Court decisions in Taiwan, “the overall quantitative analysis” and “the leading cases approach " are taken as the research methods in this thesis. The problem awareness of the observation lies as follows: Has the Court been changing the standpoints as balancing the relative worth between environmental protection, economic development and other legislative grounds? What are the factors that have influenced the Court’s decisions? With the expansion of “the environment” defined, the globalization and complication of the environmental issues, and the attention on the environmental worth from the civil society in Taiwan, does the overall trend of the judicial decisions echo the goal of sustainable development? During the observation mentioned above, the perspectives are focused on “standing”, “the review standards”, and “the holding”, which is influenced by the first two indicators, of the judicial decisions.
After the overall quantitative analysis, “the extension of environmental capacity-building” is shown on standing, review standards, and the holding in the decisions of the Court during the period of “1999 to 2006”, “2007”, and “2008 to June, 2012”. This extension has been influenced by the civil society and also has been the result of the Court’s introspection into the litigation system. The Supreme Administrative Court also has played a leading role during this extension.
Furthermore, this extension of the environmental capacity-building is pointed out by the research on leading cases. Since 2005, it is presented that the Court has referred the relevant theories and then broadened the definition of standing. The environmental right also has been enriched on both fields of substantial and procedure in these leading cases, and so has the sub-concept of the environmental right, such as culture and scenery. Moreover, the Court has developed more delicate and thorough review standards in these cases. And all the changes above echo the observation from the overall quantitative analysis. However, this extension has been shaken by the political force in the CTSP (3rd & 4th Stage) disputes after 2010. The Court in these disputes not only has ceased the trend on standing and review standards, but also has limited the definition of standing and reviewed the cases with the extremely loose standard, which means the Court has stepped aside in these disputes.
In conclusion, as the civil society becomes maturer and valued the environmental worth more, the Court extends the environmental capacity-building in the judicial decisions. This rising trend highly possibly falls back under the shadow of powerful politics. However, with the desire of “sustainable development” from the civil society, by means of the litigation strategy and the proof of improper administrative behaviors, the inner conviction of the Court may still follow the extended environmental capacity-building so that the Court keeps turning into “the Green Court” who pursuits the sustainable life.

並列關鍵字

Environmental Capacity-Building ； Standing ； Right of Legal Action ； Review Standards ； Environmental Right ； Civil Society ； CTSP

參考文獻

弘誓雙月刊編輯室（2007）。〈樂生療養院大事記年表〉，《弘誓雙月刊》，第87期。載於：http://hongshi.org.tw/writings.aspx?code=56042A41FC8650B7C06039D91F55A3D5。

李丁讚、吳介民（2008）。〈公民社會的概念史考察〉，《群學爭鳴：台灣社會學發展史，1945-2005》，頁393-454。臺北：群學。

杜文苓、彭渰雯（2008）。〈社運團體的體制內參與及影響－以環評會與婦權會為例〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，第5卷第1期，頁119-148。

范玫芳（2008）。〈科技、民主與公民身份：安坑灰渣掩埋場設置爭議之個案研究〉，《台灣政治學刊》，第12卷第1期，頁185-228。

張文貞（2012）。〈演進中的法：一般性意見作為國際人權公約的權威解釋〉，《臺灣人權學刊》，第1卷第2期，頁25-43。