請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4529
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 葉俊榮(Jiunn-rong Yeh) | |
dc.contributor.author | In-Lon Lei | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李彥麟 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-14T17:43:02Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-09-17 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-14T17:43:02Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-09-17 | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-08-12 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4529 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 在環境破壞或污染事件中,撇開可能的行政罰、刑罰責任不談,污染者應如何為其行為負起「真正的責任」?如果污染者侵害了私人的人格權或財產權,污染者基於侵權行為法或公害法,必須負擔民事上的損害賠償責任,回復損害發生前的原狀,或在無法回復原狀時以金錢賠償。這些受害的人身及財產,在法律上權利歸屬明確,權利人自然會為他�她們受害的權利請求救濟,不愁無人發聲。然而,同樣因污染而受害的生態環境與自然資源等「環境財」(environmental goods),由於並不屬於任何人,在法律上可能沒人有資格替它發聲。結果是,污染者不必賠償環境財的損害。在這樣的情形下,污染者並未真正為其污染行為負起完全的責任。
本文主張污染者應對環境財的損害負起完全的賠償責任。因此,本文要回答幾個核心問題:首先,為何污染者應對環境財的損害負賠償責任,即令環境財在法律上並不屬於任何人?其次,有哪些對待環境財的模式,有助於落實環境財的損害賠償?第三,臺灣目前採取了哪個模式?下一步又可往哪個模式發展?第四,環境責任的下一步,應如何具體實踐與運作? 本文首先主張,外部成本的內部化及代際正義,是污染者應對環境財損害負賠償責任的主要理由。其次,本文整理爬梳歷來的法學論述及人類社會的具體實踐,歸納出四種對待環境財的模式,有助於解決環境財損害賠償的問題。這四種模式分別是:(1)環境人格化模式;(2)環境私有化模式;(3)環境權主張模式;(4)信託模式。本文認為,進入大量環境立法的時代以來,信託模式已是主流的模式,但在臺灣的實踐仍有許多缺陷,污染者不必對環境財損害負賠償責任的問題並未獲得解決。在比較各種模式的優勢與劣勢之後,對於環境責任的下一步,本文選擇以環境權主張模式來彌補信託模式的不足。 關於環境權主張模式的具體運作,本文認為:立法者所制定的環境法規劃定的「環境優勢」,正可作為「環境權」的內涵。當污染者違反環境法規,它也侵犯了人們享有美好、健康的生態環境以及「生態服務」(ecosystem services)的權利,應負損害賠償責任。生態環境、自然資源及其對人類所提供的生態服務,現實上為不特定多數人共同享有且難以排他,基於此一特性,不妨認為「環境權人」就是全體人民(甚至可以包含未來世代)。但出於訴訟經濟及代表性的考量,應由環保團體代表全體環境權人向污染者請求損害賠償;亦即,環保團體有當事人適格。原告環保團體得請求污染者整治污染、復育生態,回復損害發生前的原狀,或請求回復原狀的費用,以代回復原狀;若不能回復原狀,得請求污染者以金錢賠償環境財的損失。環境財雖然往往因為不在市場上被交易而不具有明確的價格,但為環境財損害酌定適當的賠償金,是法院應該做、也可以做到的事。然而,基於環境財的利益為不特定多數人共同享有且難以排他的特性,環保團體請求所得的賠償金不應再分配給個人,而應專款專用於污染整治、復育生態、回復環境財損害及其他與環境保護、永續發展相關的事項。為此,我們可以用賠償金成立一筆「環境財基金」,為基金建立永續管理的機制,而未來所有的環境財損害賠償都注入此筆環境財基金,如此一來更可以照顧到未來世代的環境利益。這樣的環境權主張模式及具體運作,都能在現行法律上找到基礎,並非翻天覆地的創新,而只是在當今的法律典範上前進小小的一步。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Besides civil and/or criminal penalties prescribed by environmental statutes, what kind of environmental liability should be imposed on the polluter in cases of environmental destruction or pollution? Needless to say, under tort law and nuisance law, if the pollution constitutes a tort against a person or private property, the polluter as a tortfeasor must pay a sum of damages in order to compensate for the injuries suffered by the victims. Obviously, the polluter bears the tort liability because personal rights and property rights have been so clearly defined that the court faces no difficulty recognizing right-holders’ standing to sue the polluter for compensation.
However, what about those “environmental goods” to which no one has a clear legal title, but are also damaged by pollution? Who has standing to sue the polluter for recovery of the damage to environmental goods? Shall the polluter be excused from civil liability, merely because environmental goods belong to no one (and, as a result, no one has standing to sue)? Should it be the case, it cannot be said that the polluter is fully responsible for all the loss and damage caused by pollution. The core argument of this thesis is that the polluter shall bear full civil liability for the damage he causes to environmental goods. This thesis attempts to address four main questions: Firstly, why should the polluter compensate for the damage to environmental goods, even if no one has legal title to those environmental goods? Secondly, what approaches to the distribution and management of environmental goods can realize full recovery of environmental damage? Thirdly, which approach(es) does Taiwan adopt, and which approach(es) should be the next stage for Taiwan? Fourthly, what should be the specifics and details of the environmental liability scheme of the next stage? How should it be practiced and operated? Part 2 of this thesis defines “environmental goods” as natural objects, natural resources and their functions – ecosystem services – to which no one has legal title. Part 2 also argues that internalization of external costs and intergenerational equity are two main reasons why it is desirable and necessary to have the polluter make full recovery of damage to environmental goods; both reasons have their legal basis in the Basic Environment Act of Taiwan. Based on existing legal and economic theories and human practices, Part 3 proposes four approaches to the distribution and management of environmental goods that theoretically may help to achieve full recovery of environmental damage. These approaches are: (1) Rights of Nature approach, (2) Privatization of Environmental Goods approach, (3) Right to Environment approach, and (4) Public Trust of Environmental Goods approach. Since the era of environmental legislation and regulation, Public Trust of Environmental Goods approach has become the mainstream and has been widely adopted by countries including Taiwan. However, in Taiwan, Public Trust of Environmental Goods approach has not been practiced perfectly and flawlessly; there still remain some loopholes in Taiwan’s statutory environmental liability regime so that polluters do not always have to pay civil compensation for environmental damage to the trustee of environmental goods – the Government. In order to close these loopholes, after a comparison of four approaches and a brief analysis of their pros and cons, I suggest that Right to Environment approach can complement the mainstream Public Trust of Environmental Goods approach and should be Taiwan’s next (but not final) step toward a full-recovery environmental liability regime. Part 4 goes into the specifics and details of how Right to Environment approach can be practiced and operated. Some critical questions are addressed. Firstly, what should be the content of “right to environment,” if it is to be a meaningful and operable substantive legal right? I argue that the right to environment is a right defined by various environmental legislation and regulations, with an aim to protect people’s interests in the enjoyment of a healthy environment and ecosystem services it provides. When the polluter fails to comply with certain environmental statutes or regulations, such as environmental standards and prohibition of some particular activities, he also commits a tort against people’s right to environment and, as a result, should bear the compensatory liability. Secondly, who is/are the holder(s) of the right to environment? My answer to this is: all the people, including future generations to come! It is because a healthy environment and ecosystem services it provides are what people as a group have, enjoy, and share in common. To be concise, most environmental goods have strong externality and are by nature non-excludable; most of the time, it is costly or even impossible to tell “who” individually enjoys “how much” of “what benefit” from a given environmental good. Thirdly, who has/have standing to sue the polluter for compensation? In light of efficiency of the proceedings, adequate representation, and the logic of collective action, I suggest that only environmental NGOs may have standing and thus can be the plaintiff(s) – on behalf of and for the benefit of all the people as victims whose right to environment was infringed by pollution. Fourthly, with respect to plaintiff’s remedies, the environmental NGO should be entitled to demand that the polluter carry out the removal and remedy of the pollution, rehabilitation of damaged natural environment, and/or restoration of ecosystem’s functions; or to demand that the polluter pay the costs thereof. But in cases where those measures are impossible or infeasible, the polluter should pay monetary damages instead for the loss of environmental goods. Even though many environmental goods are usually not commodities traded in the market and thus may not have their “prices,” the court should nevertheless assess the “value” of those damaged environmental goods when determining the appropriate amount of monetary damages. Lastly, if the plaintiff environmental NGO wins the lawsuit and damages are awarded, how should the monetary awards be allocated and used? I suggest that, instead of distributing the money, an “Environmental Goods Fund” can be established with those monetary awards. The money from the Fund should be appropriated exclusively for the purposes of removal and remedy of pollutions, rehabilitation of damaged natural environment, restoration of ecosystem’s functions, and other purposes related to environmental protection and sustainable development. My suggestion is based not only on the fact that most environmental goods have strong externality and are shared in common by the general public, but also on the need of achieving intergenerational equity. Using the monetary compensation in this way, the environmental interests of the general public and even of future generations can be served well and fairly. It must be noted that the arguments of this thesis can be achieved without a fundamental paradigm shift of Taiwan’s legal system, and can find their legal basis in existing laws. All they require are just some slight changes to judges’ way of legal thinking and how judges interpret some ordinary legal concepts such as “injury” and “standing,” plus, of course, some degree of environmental consciousness. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-14T17:43:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R00A21036-1.pdf: 2069724 bytes, checksum: 258bee6f3a21677143614ec4603d927b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 iv
Abstract vi 簡目 ix 圖目錄 xv 表目錄 xv 楔子:大樹啊,妳真的這麼不成材嗎? 1 1. 緒論 3 1.1. 問題意識 3 1.2. 本文概覽 3 1.3. 議題範圍 6 1.4. 基本立場 7 1.4.1. 解釋論或立法論? 7 1.4.2. 人類中心主義或生態中心主義? 8 2. 環境財的定義與賠償的理由 10 2.1. 本文的環境財定義 10 2.1.1. 「權利歸屬」的觀點:不屬於任何人的自然界事物 11 2.1.2. 「功能並重」的觀點:生態服務的啟示 12 2.1.3. 概念區辨 14 2.2. 為什麼應為破壞環境財而負賠償責任? 16 2.2.1. 外部成本的內部化:追求效率、嚇阻污染 17 2.2.2. 代際正義 20 2.2.2.1. 代際正義原則與環境責任的關係 22 2.2.2.2. 未來世代如何享有權利? 24 2.2.3. 探尋法律基礎:環境基本法 26 2.2.3.1. 污染者付費�負責原則 27 2.2.3.2. 「環境資源為全體國民世代所有」 27 2.3. 小結 29 3. 環境損害賠償的四種模式 31 3.1. 環境人格化模式 32 3.1.1. 環境人格化模式的理論基礎 33 3.1.1.1. 生態學對環境倫理的影響 33 3.1.1.2. 法學主張:「樹木應該有當事人適格?」 36 3.1.2. 環境人格化模式的實踐案例 38 3.1.2.1. Morton案:原告是環保團體,還是山谷? 38 3.1.2.2. Palila案:只是「鳥假人威」罷了? 41 3.1.2.3. 灰面鵟鷹控告阮剛猛:臺灣版的Palila案? 43 3.1.3. 所以,「環境人」的損害賠償是什麼? 45 3.1.3.1. 環境享有什麼權利? 45 (1)環境的財產權? 45 (2)環境的「人格權」 46 3.1.3.2. 阻卻違法事由? 48 3.1.3.3. 損害賠償的方法? 49 (1)財產上損害賠償:回復原狀的費用 49 (2)非財產上損害賠償:環境的「慰撫金」? 50 3.1.4. 環境人格化模式的啟示與反省 51 3.2. 環境私有化模式 52 3.2.1. 環境私有化模式的理論基礎 52 3.2.1.1. 公有地悲劇的啟示(一):私有財產權制度 52 3.2.1.2. 寇斯定理:界定產權,追求效率 54 3.2.1.3. 自由市場環境主義:以市場取代政府管制 56 3.2.2. 環境私有化的問題 58 3.2.2.1. 成本效益問題:可能把所有環境財都私有化嗎? 58 3.2.2.2. 策略問題:私有化是最佳的環境財管理方式嗎? 60 3.2.2.3. 道德、正義與人權問題:環境財應該被私有化嗎? 61 3.2.3. 另闢蹊徑:利他的私有化——環境公益信託 64 3.2.4. 環境私有化模式的啟示與反省 66 3.3. 環境權主張模式 67 3.3.1. 環境權主張模式的理論基礎 68 3.3.1.1. 憲法位階的環境權:徒法不足以自行 68 3.3.1.2. 法律位階的環境權:兩種來源 72 (1)既有人格權與財產權創設的環境優勢 73 (2)環境法規創設的環境優勢 73 3.3.2. 在兩種法律位階環境權之間尋找「獨立的環境權」 74 3.3.2.1. 情境二:遵守環境法規作為侵權行為阻卻違法事由? 76 3.3.2.2. 情境三與情境四:有沒有「獨立的環境權」? 79 3.3.3. 但,誰是環境權人? 81 3.3.4. 環境權主張模式的啟示與反省 82 3.4. 信託模式 83 3.4.1. 信託模式的理論基礎 84 3.4.1.1. 公有地悲劇的啟示(二):以公權力管理資源 84 3.4.1.2. 經濟學:提供公共財是政府的天職 85 3.4.1.3. 公共信託原則:政府作為環境財的受託人 86 3.4.2. 信託模式的法律實踐 90 3.4.2.1. 憲法位階的信託理念 90 3.4.2.2. 法律位階的信託模式實踐:以美國環境立法為例 91 (1)全面性環境應變補償及責任法(CERCLA) 91 (2)石油污染法(Oil Pollution Act) 92 (3)潔淨水法(Clean Water Act) 93 (4)綜合分析:與信託的相似性 93 3.4.2.3. 臺灣的環境財受託人是否稱職? 94 (1)污染者回復原狀的義務? 96 (2)污染者(金錢)損害賠償的義務? 97 (3)污染費、罰鍰、罰金及賠償金,是否專用於環保? 101 (4)法律的保護範圍與環境責任範圍是否涵蓋所有的環境財? 103 (5)受託人的綜合評價:有待加強 104 3.4.3. 信託模式的問題:受益人還能做什麼? 110 3.4.4. 信託模式的啟示與反省 112 3.5. 四種模式的比較 113 (1)環境的主客地位 113 (2)權利主體的界定 114 (3)對於環境法律規範密度及政府公權力的需求 114 (4)是否將生態服務功能納入環境責任考量? 114 (5)賠償金額的酌定 115 3.6. 小結:環境責任模式選擇的下一步? 116 4. 模式選擇:以環境權主張模式彌補信託模式 119 4.1. 環境權的內容 120 4.1.1. 環境權的概念內涵與所保護的利益 120 4.1.2. 環境權的主體 122 4.2. 權利的行使:當事人適格的問題 123 4.2.1. 代表性、程序保障與訴訟經濟觀點下的當事人適格 124 4.2.2. 集體行動邏輯下的當事人適格 126 4.2.3. 權力分立觀點下的當事人適格 128 4.2.4. 應承認環保團體的當事人適格 131 4.2.5. 一些可能的疑慮? 132 (1)多數環保團體之間的關係 132 (2)環保團體與政府之間的關係 133 4.3. 損害賠償的請求權基礎與方法 135 4.3.1. 請求權基礎:民法第184條侵權行為 135 4.3.2. 損害賠償的方法 138 4.3.2.1. 回復原狀 138 4.3.2.2. 金錢賠償 138 4.4. 賠償金的歸屬與運用:專款專用的「環境財基金」 142 4.5. 小結:環境財受益人的覺醒 145 5. 結論 147 (1)以人類中心主義的法律制度,認證生態環境的「價值」 147 (2)邁向具有環境關懷的新世代民法 148 (3)司法權今後應更勇於處理涉及眾人利益之事 149 (4)臺灣的環保團體,已經能夠作為適格的當事人 150 (5)環保團體不應與環保機關對立,而是應與政府協力對抗污染者 151 參考文獻 153 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 誰為環境發聲?環境財損害賠償的模式選擇 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Who Will Be Nature’s Attorney? Approaches Toward Full Recovery of Environmental Damage | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 施文真(Wen-Chen Shih),汪信君(Hsin-Chun Wang),吳英傑(Ying Chieh Wu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 環境責任,環境財,環境權,生態服務,當事人適格,代際正義, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | environmental liability,environmental goods,right to environment,ecosystem services,standing,intergenerational equity, | en |
dc.relation.page | 168 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-08-12 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-104-1.pdf | 2.02 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。