請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89909
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 吳從周 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Chung-Jau Wu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 趙曉慧 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Hsiao-Huei Chao | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-22T16:38:18Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-09-22 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-08-14 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文部份
(一)中文書籍 1.法治斌、董保城,憲法新論,頁65-67,元照,2006年。 2.陳自強,契約之成立與生效,元照,2018年。 (二)期刊論文 1.行政院經濟建設委員會,碳排放交易機制建置之研究,頁1-376,2009年。 2.蘇義淵,溫室氣體減量及管理法排放額度法律性質與配套措施之研究,中正大學法學集刊,66,頁59-120,2020年。 3.行政院環境保護署,臺灣碳定價之選項,頁1-6,2020年12月。 4.李堅明(2023),<臺灣淨零曙光-臺灣碳權交易所設立>,會計研究月刊452期,頁58-75。 (三)學位論文 1.李昀蓁,從排放權交易機制之訴訟論如何精進排放權交易機制之設計要素》,國立政治大學國際經營與貿易學系碩士論文,2022年。 2.沈婉真,國際氣候變遷法制下影響臺灣碳權融資之法律問題初探,國立中興大學法律學系科技法律碩士班碩士論文,2013年。 3.陳芊菏,比例原則於我國民事實務之體現—以侵權法與契約法為中心,東海大學法律學系碩士論文,2012年。 4.陳彥希,契約法之經濟分析,台灣大學法律學系博士論文,1994年。 5.饒心雅,論排放交易標的之買賣契約與風險——以溫室氣體減量及管理法下之減量額度為中心,國立中興大學法律學系碩士論文,2018年。 (四)網路資料 1.陳瑋鴻,碳權如何獲得?可以交易嗎?完整介紹碳權運作機制,商業周刊,2023年4月27日,https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/carbon-reduction/blog/3010903(最後瀏覽日:2023年6月1日)。 2.蘇彥誠,【看懂碳定價2】2024年碳費開徵!碳交易籌備逾20年,為何環署改推碳費?,願景工程,2022年6月20日,https://visionproject.org.tw/story/6275 (最後瀏覽日:2023年6月21日)。 3.謝蓓宜,回覆「氣候訴訟」卻不提「氣候變遷」,經濟部仍不願面對「用電大戶條款」,關鍵評論,2021年6月23日,URL: https://www.thenewslens.com/article/152430 (最後瀏覽日:2023年6月25日)。 二、外文部份 I. Book 1.Aslanbeigui N., Pigou, Arthur Cecil (1877–1959), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed. Abstract (2008). 2.ICAP, Emissions Trading in Practice: A Handbook on Design and Implementation (2nd Edition), 2021. URL: https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/publications/emissions-trading-practice-handbook-design-and-implementation-2nd-edition 3.IPCC, Global warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., Waterfield, T. (Eds.)]. In Press, 2018. 4.Peel, J., and H.M. Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2015, p.1-352. 5.Setzer, J., and Higham, C., Global trends in climate change litigation: 2022 snapshot. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2022, p.1-50. II. Journal Article 1.Branger, F., J. P. Ponssard, O. Sartor, and M. Sato., EUETS, Free Allocations, and Activity Level Thresholds: The Devil Lies in the Details, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 2(3), 401-37,( 2015). URL: https://doi.org/10.1086/682343/ 2.Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. T., & Jenkins, J. C., Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002-2019, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 10(4), 392-404, (2020). doi: 10.1007/s13412-020-00602-2 3.Daltrop P. and Mulqueeny K., Asian Judges: Green Courts and Tribunals, and Environmental Justice. Law and Policy Reform. 1, 2010, p.1-4. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27654/2010-brief-01-asian-judges.pdf 4.Ganguly, G., J. Setzer, and V. Heyvaert. If at First You Don't Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38, 841–868, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy029 5.Li, B., Zhou, J., and Tian, Y.. Carbon Emissions and Industrial Structure from a Global Externality Perspective. Resour. Sci. 36, 2014, p.2483–2490. 6.Markell, D.L., and J.B. Ruhl., An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual? Florida Law Review, 64 (1), 15–86, (2012). https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=flr 7.Peel, J., and H.M. Osofsky, A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation? Transnational Environmental Law, 7 (1), 37–67, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102517000292 8.Setzer, J., and L.C. Vanhala, Climate Change Litigation: A Review of Research on Courts and Litigants in Climate Governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10 (3), 1-19, (2019). 9.Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon N., Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat Clim Change, 1, 46–49, (2011). 10.Weber E. U., Climate change hits home. Nat Clim Change, 1, 25–26, (2011). 11.Weber, E. U., and Stern, P. C., Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315–328, (2011). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023253 12.Zheng Y., Sun X., Zhang C., Wang D. and Mao J., Can Emission Trading Scheme Improve Carbon Emission Performance? Evidence From China, Frontiers in Energy Research, Volume 9. (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.759572 III. Italian Journal Article 1.Coase, Ronald H., The Nature of the Firm, Economica, 4 (16), 1937, p.386–405. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x IV. English Research Paper 1.Bhalla, N., Indian activist Ramesh Agrawal wins "green Nobel" for fight against coal mining. Thomson Reuters Foundation., 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/india-environment-ramesh-agrawal-idINKBN0DF1IK20140429 2.Borick C, Rabe B., A reason to believe; examining the factors that determine individual views on global warming. Soc Sci Q 91(3), 2010, p.777–800. 3.Burke, J., Fankhauser, S., and Bowen, A., Pricing carbon during the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy Brief.1-4, 2020. 4.CE Delft and Oeko-Institut present empirical evidence suggesting cost pass-through despite the provision of free allowances in both Phase 2(grandparenting) and Phase 3 (fixed-sector benchmarking) of the EUETS , for certain industrial sectors, 2015. 5.Golnaraghi M., Setzer J., Brook N., Lawrence W., Williams L., Climate Change Litigation-Insights into the evolving global landscape. CLYDE&Co: The Geneva association, 2021, p.1-44. 6.Klinger B., Netherlands confronted with €1.4 billion ICSID claim in first Dutch investor-state arbitration, 2021. https://www.lexology.com/Commentary/arbitration-adr/netherlands/freshfields-bruckhaus-deringer-llp/netherlands-confronted-with-14-billion-icsid-claim-in-first-dutch-investor-state-arbitration 7.Krosnick J, Holbrook A, Lowe L, Visser P, The origins and consequences of democratic citizens ‘policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming, Climatic Change Spring, 2008, p.7-43. 8.OECD (2022) Environment at a glance indicator: Climate change. 2022 Sep., 1-37. https://www.oecd.org/environment/environment-at-a-glance/env-2019-2340-en.pdf 9.Setzer, J., and L. Benjamin., Climate Change Litigation in the Global South: Filling in Gaps. AJIL Unbound, 114, 2022, p.56-60. 10.Setzer, J., and R. Byrnes., Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2020 Snapshot, 2020. https://www.lse.ac.uk/ granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Globaltrends-in-climate-change-litigation_2020-snapshot.pdf. 11.UNFCCC, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, 2015. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf 12.United Nations Climate Change, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992. URL:https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/convchin.pdf 13.Watts J., Dutch officials reveal measures to cut emissions after court ruling, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/dutch-officials-reveal-measures-to-cut-emissions-after-court-ruling/ V. German Research Paper 1.Larenz, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, 13. Aufl. VI. Court Decision 1.Future Generations v. The State of Norway, HR-2020-105-A (Nov. 22, 2020). 2.State of New York et al v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 2020 WL 6375826 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020). 3.Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands, Case No. C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396 (Dec. 20, 2019). URL: https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/climate-case-explained/ VII English Newspaper 1.Stead, R., Federal court dismisses young Australians' climate change class action against environment minister. The Guardian, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/27/federal-court-dismisses-young-australians-climate-change-class-action-against-environment-minister/ | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89909 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 因應全球暖化問題,氣候變遷成為近年來主要的風險,全球諸多國家考量氣候風險不可控制的特性,對於國家經濟發展具有重大影響,因此,紛紛投入減少碳排放之承諾。然而,我國因國際地位之特殊,無法藉由《京都議定書》之彈性機制而取得碳權,故我國推動腳步相較於歐美國家較為緩慢,惟本研究仍期待能對於我國未來相關政策法規及市場制度之制定設計具有參考價值。
本研究採用文獻資料分析法,我國相關交易制度尚在建立及成形中且於2023年2月15日經歷自2015年7月1日後第一次修法,檢視我國《氣候變遷因應法》可以從條文中完整的碳交易機制及政府的角色與職權發現該法令中政府仍較大幅度的干預與主導我國排放量目標的達成執行,在交易制度的規劃上尚未有明確的法令。本次修法新增「氣候變遷調適專章」,也是修法一大重點,法案規定政府必須建構調適能力,以科學為基礎,評估氣候風險、強化治理能力以提升韌性,建構綠色金融、調適技術研發與教育等,制定國家氣候變遷調適行動計畫。 整體而言,《氣候變遷因應法》新法上路,主要仍仰賴中央管理機關如何善盡職責帶動我國氣候治理環境發展,市場機制之促成就目前市場環境尚在初期發展階段,可預期在短期內難有專法依據,相關契約及交易機制仍仰賴民法契約之保護。 本研究限制在於我國碳排放權交易市場制度尚未成形,相關法律規章及制度仍在初期的發展階段,參考國外作法或國外相關訴訟判決文件時,仍需考量法律制度精神的差異,以及應用至我國環境的適用性。由於我國尚未有針對碳排放權交易之市場,亦無適用之交易法規,故本研究依據現行相關法令內容,對應適用民法之內容進行比較。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In response to global warming, climate change has become a major risk in recent years. Considering the uncontrollable nature of climate risks, many countries around the world have a major impact on national economic development. Therefore, they have committed to reducing carbon emissions. However, due to China's special international status, it is impossible to obtain carbon rights through the flexible mechanism of the "Kyoto Protocol". Therefore, China's progress is slower than that of European and American countries. However, this study still hopes to have a positive impact on China's future relevant policies, regulations and markets. The formulation and design of the system has reference value.
This study adopts the method of literature analysis. China's relevant trading system is still being established and formed, and it will undergo the first amendment since July 1, 2015 on February 15, 2023. To examine China's "Climate Change Response Law" can be viewed from the text The complete carbon trading mechanism and the role and authority of the government found that in this decree, the government still significantly intervenes and leads the implementation of China's emission targets, and there is no clear decree on the planning of the trading system. The new "Climate Change Adaptation Special Chapter" is also a major focus of the revision of the law. The law stipulates that the government must build adaptation capabilities based on science, assess climate risks, strengthen governance capabilities to enhance resilience, build green finance, and adjust technology research and development. and education, etc., to formulate a national climate change adaptation action plan. This study adopts the method of literature analysis. China’s relevant trading system is still in its overall form. The new law of the Climate Change Response Law mainly depends on how the central management agency can fulfill its duties to promote the development of China’s climate governance environment. The promotion of the market mechanism has achieved the current situation. The market environment is still in the initial stage of development, and it is expected that there will be no legal basis in the short term. Relevant contracts and transaction mechanisms still rely on the protection of civil law contracts. The limitation of this study is that China's carbon emission rights trading market system has not yet taken shape, and relevant laws, regulations and systems are still in the initial stage of development. suitability for the environment. Since my country does not yet have a market for carbon emission rights trading, and there are no applicable trading regulations, this study compares the contents of applicable civil laws based on the contents of relevant current laws and regulations. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-09-22T16:38:18Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-09-22T16:38:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝 辭 i
摘 要 ii Abstract iii 目 錄 v 圖目錄 vii 表目錄 viii 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究動機與研究目的 1 1.2 名詞定義 5 1.4 研究方法與研究限制 9 第二章 碳排放權交易制度發展 10 2.1 碳排放權交易制度之介紹 10 2.2 碳排放權定價 15 2.3 碳權交易所建置 22 2.4 碳排放上限與交易制度 36 第三章 氣候訴訟與排放權交易訴訟 42 3.1 氣候訴訟 42 3.2 排放權交易訴訟 50 第四章 碳排放權交易契約 54 4.1 《氣候變遷因應法》 54 4.2 碳排放權交易契約之權利義務 58 4.3 漂綠與反漂綠 66 4.4 碳排放權契約之要件 68 4.5 契約之違反及終止 69 4.6 小 結 74 第五章 結 論 75 參考文獻 78 一、中文部份 78 二、外文部份 80 附 錄 85 附件一、排放減量買賣契約(Emission Reduction Purchase Agreement) 85 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 論碳排放權之交易契約 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Trading Contract of Carbon Credit | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 向明恩;邱琦 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Mingen Hsiang;Qi Chiu | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 全球暖化,氣候變遷因應法,碳權,京都議定書,碳排放權交易市場制度,漂綠, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Carbon Credit,Green Washing,Climate Change Response Act,Global Warming,Kyoto Protocol, | en |
dc.relation.page | 95 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202303997 | - |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-08-14 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 進修推廣學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 事業經營法務碩士在職學位學程 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 事業經營法務碩士在職學位學程 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.62 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。