國家的風險決策與風險決策監督 —以建立「風險原則」為中心

Abstract

自從產生核電廠興建與否的爭議開始，各種的風險議題不斷挑戰我國的法律系統，風險議題造成國家決策的困境，浪費許多的社會成本，卻無法作出適當的決策；因此，本篇論文想要解決，哪一個國家權力對於風險事項具有最終的風險決策權，並著重司法者對於涉及風險事項的抽象法規之違憲審查，進而帶出一連串法學的風險概念、風險法治國、風險原則之論述。 首先就法學風險概念的建立，本文參考Ulrich Beck的風險社會理論，運用其制衡科學反撲的想法以及次政治理論；參考Niklas Luhmann的觀察理論，以解決風險衡量的盲點；參考Scott Lash對於風險意識的論述，以探討風險歸責的問題；綜上想法而提出，法學上風險問題解決的關鍵在於—風險程序，也就是經由風險意識所啟動的風險評估與風險溝通。如果國家的風險決策(立法者與行政者)遵守U. Beck所主張的程序觀點，以及符合N. Luhmann強調的第一秩序和第二秩序觀察，那麼這樣的程序就可以確保立法者與行政者具有最終的風險決策權；反之，如果立法者與行政者違反上述觀點，司法者的風險決策監督即以風險決策程序的審查為主，成為最終的風險決策者。因此，風險法治國與風險原則理論的建立，即為強調人民就生存權的保障，具有主觀程序請求權，而立法者與行政者的風險決策必須受到風險程序的理念所拘束，司法者的風險決策監督也以風險程序的審查作為主軸。 如此運用程序正義的精神，將有助於司法者處理風險爭議所產生事實真偽不明的不利益之歸屬問題，也就是解決風險分配、舉證責任分配的爭議。如果立法者制定風險規範時實踐風險程序，那麼事實真偽不明的不利益則交由人民負擔，反之亦然；司法者審查具體問題而為利益衡量，並運用傳統比例原則時，風險法治國所產生的風險不確定性(蓋然性)問題，將會瓦解比例原則的操作，而必須透過風險程序來確保正確蓋然性判斷的取得，進而影響比例原則的判斷。 惟有運用程序正義的精神，才可以確保國家作出正確的風險決策，也才可以賦予司法者國家風險決策監督的標準。

Various risk debates, such as the establishment of nuclear power plants in Taiwan, have been constantly challenging our legal system, causing the dilemma of decision-making in the filed of national policy and wasting a plenty of social costs. This thesis tries to solve the question on which national power is entitled to make the ultimate decisions for the risk affairs, and meanwhile, to emphasize the discussion of judicial review of abstract laws with respect to risk policy decisions in order to bring out a series of illustrations of risk concept, Risk Rechtsstaat and risk principle. First, in order to establish the concept of legal risk, by referring to (a)”risk society theory” proposed by Ulrich Beck which applies the concept of preventing from the vengeance of technology and the concept of “sub-politics theory” as well, (b) “observation theory” proposed by Niklas Luhmann which aims to dissolve the blind spot of risk evaluation and (c) the description of the awareness of risk proposed by Scott Lash which explores the problem of risk attribution, this thesis tries to put forward the idea that the key point of solving the legal risk is the risk procedure which means the evaluation for the risk and communication about the risk triggered by the awareness of the risk. If the risk decision made by one nation (either by legislators or administrators) complies with the procedure viewpoints proposed by U. Beck and conforms to the first order and second order observation by N. Luhmann, legislators and administrators may be entitled to make the ultimate decisions for the risk affairs. On the contrary, if legislators and administrators breach the procedure mentioned above, the judiciary shall be the final decision maker for any risk policy. Hence, the establishment of Risk Rechtsstaat and risk principle theory is to emphasize that the protection of people’s survival right must exist in the right of subjective procedure. The risk decision made by legislators and administrators shall be restrained by the idea of risk procedure. The review of risk procedure plays as the main string of the supervision over risk decisions of the judicial branch. By emphasizing the spirit of due process, it is helpful for the judicial branch to resolve the dispute on the attribution of risk and to clarify the responsibility of proof-giving arising from the uncertainty of truthfulness of the facts. Therefore, the disadvantage arising from the uncertainty of the truthfulness of the facts shall be born by people provided that legislators have complied with the risk procedure to stipulate any regulations for risks; vice versa. When the judicial branch evaluates the pros and cons in connection with any specific problems by implementing the traditional principle of proportionality, the problems of uncertainty (probability) arising from Risk Rechtsstaat will make the implementation of principle of proportionality collapsed, and the right judgment of probability shall be ensured through the risk procedure and further the judgment of principle of proportionality will be affected. In summary, only the spirit of due process can ensure the correctness of risk decisions made by one nation and endow the judicial branch with the standards to supervise over the risk decisions made by one nation.