摘要
本研究關注公害糾紛處理法之環境保護協定，主要探究環保協定在環境行政上實效性確保之反思與展望，惟因「地方政府」於預防環境危害發生或危害發生之際，時常扮演「所在地居民」與「事業」間之協調角色，亦因人民對於法制較不甚了解，且何謂「所在地居民」通常涉及定義問題（即哪些人具有代表性？），遂在實務上形成以「地方政府」與「事業」為主之簽署類型。是本文以「締約主體」為研究範圍之界定，揭開本文研究討論之序幕。 討論脈絡自環境行政之表現形式、環保協定之適用範圍與定位、觀察行政院環保署所公布的參考範本與締結實例對環保協定予以定性，並透析契約內容於範本與既有法制之差距、範本的性質與效力、約款之容許性與合法性以及其與依法行政原則之關連，從而試圖在締約內容與架構提出缺失與解決，以供立法或實務操作時參考之用。本文所採取的研究方法包含：問題研究法、文獻歸納法、分析研究法、實例研究法、比較研究法。 總結而言，本研究認為實務雖並未直接援引範本作為締約草案，然官方所公布的範本呈現環保協定較為完整與周延之面貌，希冀實務得以範本作為締約藍本的參考。此外，除在既有法制上「公害」、「公害糾紛」概念的範圍以及法定締約主體的資格限制等需調整，並以民國101年修訂的環保協定範本作為藍本，就締約主體、標的、內容（締結法源、宣示性規定或減少「概括援引無名法令作為契約條款」以及區分「法令條文契約條款化」之存留、環境管體組織之設置與權能、定期監測與紀錄之範圍、回饋措施之約定、資訊公開、損害賠償責任、權利義務繼受條款、環境保護基本行動計畫、環境管理標準書及緊急應變計畫之實益、管轄法院之約定、違約金之約定與寄存、關係人契約內容形成或變更之參與）等面向提出增修建議。
並列摘要
This study focuses on the environmental protection agreements of Public Nuisance Disputes Mediation Act, mainly inquiring the reflection and prospect of the functional effectiveness of environmental decision-making. However, not only the local government often played a role of coordinating between the “indigenous inhabitant” and the industry while preventing environmental harm occurred or harm occurs, but the indigenous inhabitant do not understand the legal system much. Besides the definition of the “indigenous inhabitant” is also an uncertain issue, the local governments usually are the main character signing with the industry in practice. Therefore, my study will discuss who ought to be the main subject of the environmental protection agreements. This will start from the manifestations of Environment Administration, the scope and location of environmental protection agreements, determining the agreement by observing the templates and cases, analyzing the differences, characteristics, effects, legality, and the connection of the Rule of Law between the templates and legal system, trying to discover the shortage and improving that for the legislation and practicing. Research method include: studies research, literature induction, analysis methods, case studies, and comparative research methods. To sum up, this study expects the official templates will be given priority to adopt. Furthermore, I think the scope of public nuisance and environmental disputes of current legal system and the limit of main subject have to be regulate, and providing suggestions to increase or regulate the main part, subject, and content refer to the templates of environmental protection agreements of 2012.
參考文獻
延伸閱讀
- 何瑞富（2022）。我國消費者保護法體系構作與實務之研究〔博士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202200545
- 陳明宗（2018）。我國環境法制架構之研究-以環境公民訴訟制度為中心〔碩士論文，中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201800025
- 李芝瑩、高樹人（2011）。從我國環境立法探究環境行政與倫理問題。大漢學報，(25)，1-18。https://doi.org/10.29704/JDIT.201112.0001
- 蔡志揚（2010）。我國環境影響評估實務之檢討與制度建議。技師期刊，(57)，51-58。https://doi.org/10.29772/PEJ.201012.0009
- 吳鈴筑（2010）。國內外環境教育法比較之研究〔碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0021-1610201315211887