共同但差別責任原則的再建構：後京都時代全球氣候治理的革新

Reconstructing the Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities: Toward the Renovation of Global Climate Governance in the Post-Kyoto Era

曾燕倫(Yen-Lun Tseng)

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(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.02866

摘要

國際社會對於因應氣候變遷之迫切性與必要性已有共識，然而現今國際氣候規範所發揮的成效始終有限。在即將邁入後京都時代的今時今日，國際氣候治理陷入僵局，包括減量與調適以及資金、技術在內，所有相關議題均成為國際氣候協商中各方爭執不下的場域。歸根究底，氣候協商之中各國最關切的莫過於氣候規範下諸多權利與義務如何畫定，以及責任如何分擔的問題，所反映出來的根本問題則在於共同但差別責任原則的詮釋與運用。作為當前因應氣候變遷的首要國際規範，《氣候變化綱要公約》與《京都議定書》的抽象規範精神與具體制度設計，都是奠基在共同但差別責任原則的基礎之上，因此後京都時代的國際氣候協商圍繞在此癥結點上並不令人訝異。不過令人意外的是，國際氣候協商當中持不同意見的對立各方，無不高舉共同但差別責任原則以捍衛自己的立場；於此同時，也出現了許多批判共同但差別責任原則的聲浪，認為此原則正是阻礙國際氣候治理發展的罪魁禍首。在「一個原則，各自表述」的情況下，共同但差別責任原則彷彿已經淪為混亂製造者；最近氣候治理的發展似乎也充分顯示，作為國際氣候規範的首要原則，共同但差別責任原則非但無助於解決問題，其本身反而成為最受爭議的問題所在。在後京都時代即將開始的當下，正值國際社會因應氣候變遷的努力進入下一個階段之際，探討如何適當詮釋共同但差別責任原則，非但能將此原則的理論導向真正有助於因應氣候問題的方向，實踐上更有助於各國擺脫以自我利益為本位的思維，形成實質共識。
有鑑於此，本文希望建構氣候議題下共同但差別責任原則之應然內涵，並進一步對於此原則如何具體應用於氣候規範、在各種責任上之實踐方式為何等問題，提出具體的政策建議。本文希望扣緊氣候議題的脈絡，重新詮釋並建構共同但差別責任原則，使此原則真正有利於氣候治理，因此研究方法上並不採用通常探討法律概念或一般法律原則時多會採用的法律釋義學方法，而是基於功能論的觀點，從氣候議題的特徵與特色、國際因應氣候變遷的實際發展情況，以及氣候治理的需求等面向出發，探討共同但差別責任原則在氣候治理上應該發揮的作用。另外，為了避免受限於任何流於片面或過於武斷的意識形態，本文亦不接受當前國際上任何特定一方對於共同但差別責任原則的解讀作為預設，而是立足於解構的觀點對於共同但差別責任原則的實然加以反省。研究途徑上，本文採取「脈絡化─去脈絡化─再脈絡化」的三段式方法。首先探討共同但差別責任原則的歷史沿革以了解其發展脈絡，並探討其於國際法上具體實踐的多元形貌，以釐清此原則造成分歧爭議的歷史根源；其次基於觀察所得並本於相關理論，暫時擺脫歷史脈絡的時空背景，以去脈絡化的方式建構類型化之理論模型，分析共同但差別責任原則的基本定位、功能與正當化基礎，以及運用上之具體實踐方式等三個層面，探討此原則更豐富的內涵與更多的可能性；最後再回歸脈絡式的思考，扣緊氣候變遷議題的特性與治理需求，將共同但差別責任原則重新置入後京都時代氣候治理的發展脈絡，並據此描摹理想的氣候治理責任模式，再以此檢討與評價晚近國際氣候治理之發展。
本文結論認為，共同但差別責任原則在《氣候變化綱要公約》與《京都議定書》之下的實踐發生了許多問題，造成國際氣候治理的遲滯與不利；若要真正發揮有利於氣候治理的功能，共同但差別責任原則必須擺脫歷史包袱，在氣候議題的脈絡下重新被理解與再建構。改革方向上，首先是觀念上的轉變，吾人必須宏觀的看待氣候治理，將氣候變遷定位為長期趨勢之下人類生活方式的轉型問題，而非只是單純的過渡性環境問題，從而與其它國際環境問題有別；因此未來氣候治理之規範必須促成產業形態改變，並以永續發展為核心理念。共同但差別責任原則由於陷於開發中國家與已開發國家之間長久且延續至今的權力衝突，應用於氣候治理上的結果非但不能達成有助於達成最低限度的共識，所衍生出的規範與制度從本質上來說更不利於氣候治理，因此必須擺脫諸多國際議題上例來深陷於「南北對立」的路徑相依。有鑑於氣候規範上典範轉移之需求，氣候治理下良善的共同但差別責任原則必須將目光轉向不斷動態發展的未來，並以人類集體負起共同責任的方向作為終極目標，無法再像過去一樣單單將視角與觸角侷限於過去或任何一個靜止的時間階段。確立這一點之後，其次就制度興革而言，本文主張共同但差別責任原則必須扣緊氣候變遷的議題特色與治理需求，無悖於全球治理的趨勢，且切合永續發展的意旨，具體做法包括確立普世主義之立場、納入多重功能與正當化規範基礎、為責任分配建立多元的多重指標，並建構動態性且具備彈性的管制機制，以回應不斷變動的國際動態。最後，觀察晚近國際氣候治理的發展趨勢，雖然目前局勢不免有令人擔憂之處，但同時也嶄露了突破的契機，吾人對於氣候治理的前景仍然有理由抱持著樂觀的態度。

關鍵字

共同但差別責任原則 ； 氣候變遷 ； 氣候治理 ； 全球治理 ； 永續發展 ； 後京都時代 ； 國際環境法

並列摘要

Although the determination to cope with climate change and the consensus to deal with it at better speed have now taken form and grown solid than ever in the international community, the present achievement of global climate governance is limited and far from satisfying. The prospect of climate governance seems to have sunk into deadlock and uncertainty, as multiple issues still remain on the front of fierce debate and confrontation arises among states in the international climate forum. The disputes on varied issues in climate governance boil down in how to define and allocate responsibilities among states. Accordingly, the fundamental problem lies in the interpretation and application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (hereinafter CBDR). The major international norms responding to climate change, the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, both highlight and make CBDR the first and foremost principle as the foundation of their regulatory institutions. As a result, it is not surprising at all to find so much disputes concerning CBDR. What is indeed surprising, rather, is the fact that CBDR is espoused by states on confronting positions to defend and promote their own interests. At the same time, critics also blame CBDR as not only fails to solve problems but stands as the culprit that courts more controversy. The tumult and turmoil in international climate negotiation, as unequivocally revealed in the turnout of COP 15, in 2009 at Copenhagen, only evidence this serious problem.
CBDR now presents itself as the urgent problem that needs to be solved first. As the world is now entering the post-Kyoto era, a timely critical reflection and thorough exploration of CBDR can help resolve the puzzle and shed some light on the prospect of global climate governance. This Thesis aims to reconstruct an ideal version of CBDR, and propose a better use and application thereof that can contribute to institutional renovation of current climate governance. For the purpose of re-interpreting and re-constructing CBDR tailored to the context of climate change, this Thesis averts dogmatic legal analysis but takes a functionalist approach, exploring the issue in light of practical perspectives including the distinctive features of climate change, the historical development of governing climate change, and the institutional requirements of global climate governance. Besides, to avoid biases from any current version of CBDR from a specific position, this Thesis sets out to deconstruct CBDR rather than embrace any existing framed understanding. This Thesis takes a three-step approach of “contextualization, de-contextualization, and re-contextualization.” Fist, this Thesis explores the history of CBDR and analyzes its diverse faces in practice, so as to depicts its specific context. Next, for the purpose of an unbiased analysis, this Thesis shuns off historical complex and constructs a three-tier theoretical model. It analyzes respectively the fundamental tenet, the foundations of function as well as justifications, and the forms and strategies of application in practice of CBDR, so as to explore more possibilities in all aspects. Finally, this Thesis places CBDR in the context of climate change, combing through the distinctive features of climate change, the dynamics of global governance, and the principles of sustainable development. In the end, this Thesis proposes an ideal version of CBDR and proposals for reform under climate governance, and evaluates the trends of recent developments accordingly.
In conclusion, this Thesis makes the case that the CBDR as prescribed and applied under the current UNFCCC plus Kyoto Protocol Regime is distorted and flawed; to better serve the purpose of coping with climate change, CBDR must break away from historical tangle and be understood and constructed anew in the context of climate change. First of all, a change of thoughts from divisive ideology is required. Climate change should be treated as a long-term transitional problem of human civilization, instead of another environmental problem which can be expected to go away in the foreseeable near future. Norms of climate governance should promote the change of industrialization based on the idea of sustainable development. CBDR is now in the deep mud of power conflicts between the developing countries and the developed countries; its application on climate change not only fails climate negotiation but also damages climate governance. Therefore, CBDR should depart from the path of “North versus South” complex; it should shift its focus from the static past to the dynamic future. Bearing this in mind, in institutional reforms, CBDR should be exercised in the way tailored to the context of climate change, pursuant to the trends of global governance, and based on the tenet of sustainable development. Specific measures of reform include affirming the tenet of universalism, incorporating multiple functions and justifications, setting up multiple indexes for assigning responsibility, and establishing responsive and flexible regulatory institutions responding to the changing global dynamics. Finally, recent developments of global climate governance shows that, though obstacles do exist, the chance to break through has also emerged. We still have reasons to be optimistic.

並列關鍵字

principle of common but differentiated responsibilities ； climate change ； climate governance ； global governance ； sustainable development ； the Post-Kyoto era ； international environmental law

參考文獻

陳欣湉(2010)。〈氣候變遷時代的新興管制：全球行政法的啟示〉，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文。

鄧烈(2006)。〈論「永續發展」概念在國際法上的意涵〉，《臺灣海洋法學報》，5卷2期，頁5-46。

牛惠之(1999)。〈國際環境公約與GATT/WTO之潛在衝突：論相關於環境之貿易措施與獎勵性措施之運用與爭議〉，《臺大法學論叢》，頁193-245，28卷4期。

葉俊榮(1991)。〈論環境政策上的經濟誘因：理論依據〉，《臺大法學論叢》，頁87-111，20卷1期。

------(2010)。〈全球氣候政治與歐盟角色初探──歐盟為何扮演領導之角色？〉，《應用倫理評論》，48期，頁71-84。