兩岸環境行政公益訴訟制度之比較

Comparison of Cross-strait Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation System

朱金藝(Jin-Yi Zhu)

環境行政公益訴訟 ； 原告適格性 ； 職責 ； 判決 ； 執行 ； environmental administrative public interest litigation ； plaintiff qualification ； duty ； court decision ； execution

高大法學論叢

16卷1期（2020 / 09 / 01）

233 - 237+239-274

繁體中文

中國大陸地區自2015年起，開展了為期兩年的檢察機關提起環境行政公益訴訟試點後，於2017年在大陸行政訴訟法中將該制度予以正式落實。中國大陸地區環境行政公益訴訟法制化之後，環境行政公益訴訟逐漸成為大陸地區檢察機關的業務新增長點以及學界探討的重要議題。臺灣對公益訴訟的探索遠早於大陸，公益訴訟於實踐之影響仍在不斷擴大。然則綜觀兩岸地區在環境保護問題上，皆存在當前環境法規範密度與數量具有相當規模的情況下而環境執法的實踐效果並不顯著的現象。為促使環境主管機關確實地負擔起權責，環境行政公益訴訟制度需通過環境保護法律規範與實踐操作等予以逐漸細化。環境行政公益訴訟之探索業已經多時，本文擬從制度、程序以及實務這三部分之比較展開論述，以期為環境行政公益訴訟實務操作及發展提供些許幫助，供海峽兩岸在環境行政公益訴訟制度上探討之參考。大陸地區行政公益訴訟制度雖然後起，但也具有一定特色，可供臺灣觀摩參考。另外，為促使環境行政公益訴訟制度切實發揮其實效，在兩地現行行政公益訴訟制度框架業已建立、認清環境行政公益訴訟為維護環境公共利益之有效而非最佳手段的基礎上，在之後的學理探討與實際操作中應繼續對環境行政公益訴訟制度予以補充完善。

The system was formally implemented in the Mainland China Administrative Litigation Act in 2017 after a two-year experiment of environmental administrative public interest litigation initiated by prosecutorial organization in 2015. After the legalization of environmental administrative public interest litigation in Mainland China, environmental administrative public interest litigation has gradually become a new working focus of the prosecutorial organization in mainland China and an important issue discussed by academia. Taiwan's exploration of public interest litigation is much earlier than that of Mainland China, and its influence on practice is expanding. However, in both sides of the Taiwan Strait, there exists a phenomenon that the density and quantity of current environmental laws and regulations have a considerable scale, while the practical effect of environmental law enforcement is not significant. In order to promote the environmental authorities to bear their responsibilities, the environmental administrative public interest litigation system needs to be gradually refined through the legal norms and practical operation of environmental protection. It has been a long time since the system of environmental administrative public interest litigation was established. This paper will discuss the comparison of systems, procedure and practical affairs, with a view to providing some help for the practical operation and development of environmental administrative public interest litigation, and providing a reference for the discussion of the environmental administrative public interest litigation system across the Taiwan Strait. Although the system of administrative public interest litigation in Mainland China has been developing since then, it also has certain characteristics, which can be used as a reference for Taiwan. In order to promote the effectiveness of environmental administrative public interest litigation system, on the basis of the establishment of the current framework of administrative public interest litigation system in the two places and the recognition that environmental administrative public interest litigation is an effective and not the best means to safeguard environmental public interest, we should continue to discuss the theory and practice of environmental administrative public interest litigation in the future, so as to supplement and improve the litigation system.

1. 陳仲嶙(2018)。美國與臺灣環境公民訴訟下的當事人適格─立法與司法協力形塑的面貌。中正大學法學集刊，60，1-40。
   連結：
2. Legal Information Institution, at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 33/1365（last visited 04/19/2019）.
3. Ajibo, Kenneth I.(2016).Transboundary hazardous wastes and environmental justice: implications for economically developing countries.Environmental Law Review,18,267-283.
4. Appel, Peter A.(2000).Intervention in Public Law Litigation: The Environmental Paradigm.Washington University Law Review,78,215-311.
5. Belka, Erin,Kern ,Sarah(2003).Assessing Civil Penalties in Clean Water Act Citizen Suit Cases.Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy,10,71-85.
6. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, at https://www.britannica.com/topic/Not-in-My-Backyard- Phenomenon (last visited 04/20/2019).
7. Hittinger, Carl W.,Bona, Jarod M.(2009).The Diminishing Role of the Private Attorney General in Antitrust and Securities Class Action Cases Aided by the Supreme Court.JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY LAW,4,167-186.
8. Johnson, Stephen M.(2014).Sue and Settle: Demonizing the Environmental Citizen Suit.Seattle University Law Review,37,891-938.
9. Lemos, Margaret H.(2016).Privatizing public litigation.Georgetown Law Journal,104,515-582.
10. McCarthy, John D.,Zald, Mayer N.(1977).Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.American Journal of Sociology,82,1212-1241.
11. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie(2002).When Litigation Is Not the Only Way: Consensus Building and Mediation As Public Interest Lawyering.Journal of Law & Policy,10,37-62.
12. Miller, Jeffrey G.(2003).Overlooked Issues in the Diligent Prosecution Citizen Suit Preclusion.Widener Law Review,10,63-90.
13. Nwangwu, George(2016).The Evolution of Environmental Justice and Trends: From Social Activism to Mainstream Movement.Journal of Environment and Earth Science,6,105-113.
14. Rouse, Katherine A.(2018).Holding the EPA Accountable: Judicial Construction of Environmental Citizen Suit Provisions.New York University Law Review,93,1271-1310.
15. Shipley, Hallie L.(2012).The WTI Incinerator: The RCRA Citizen Suit and the Emergence of Environmental Human Rights.Global Business Law Review,2,193-228.
16. Walters, Daniel E.(2019).Animal Agriculture Liability for Climatic Nuisance: A Path Forward for Climate Change Litigation.Columbia Journal of Environmental Law,44,299-339.
17. 王毓正(2013)。環境權於學理上之發展及其於司法實務上之適用。臺灣環境與土地法學雜誌，6，120-132。
18. 王毓正(2013)。美麗灣公民訴訟判決對於環境影響評估法適用爭議之釐清。月旦法學雜誌，213，39-59。
19. 吳宇(2017)。德國環境團體訴訟的嬗變及對我國的啟示。現代法學，2，155-165。
20. 李建良(2000)。論環境法上之公民訴訟。法令月刊，1，14-27。
21. 李建良(2012)。環境公民訴訟的訴訟類型與程序要件─美麗灣度假村環評公民訴訟裁判綜合評析。臺灣法學雜誌，211，25-43。
22. 李建良(2013)。土地法實務導讀 NO.136 環評公民訴訟與行政裁量：《長庚複健分院廢棄土方外運案》─簡析臺北高等行政法院 100 年度訴字第 1214 號判決。臺灣法學雜誌，226，62-71。
23. 沈開舉,邢昕(2017)。檢察機關提起行政公益訴訟訴前程序實證研究。行政法學研究，5，39-51。
24. 沈靜芳（2017）。《內蒙古：首例行政附帶民事公益訴訟案開庭》，載於中華人民共和國最高人民檢察院http://www.spp.gov.cn/dfjcdt/201711/t20171116_204855.shtml（最後瀏覽日：11/20/2018）。
25. 林惠瑜(2013)。環境公民訴訟與訴訟類型之適用。中華法學，15，121-157。
26. 崔瑜(2018)。公益保護行政執法與公民訴訟的平衡。國家檢察官學院學報，6，86-100。
27. 張文郁(2014)。淺論行政訴訟之公民訴訟─兼評最高行政法院一〇一年度判字第九八〇號判決。月旦裁判時報，25，14-37。
28. 張輝(2014)。美國公民訴訟之「私人檢察總長理論」解析。環球法律評論，1，164-175。
29. 郭宗才(2018)。民事公益訴訟與行政公益訴訟的比較研究。中國檢察官，291，3-6。
30. 陳冬(2009)。環境公益訴訟的限制性因素考察─以美國聯邦環境法的公民訴訟為主線。河北法學，8，160-164。
31. 陶建國(2013)。德國環境行政公益訴訟制度及其對我國的啟示。德國研究，2，68-126。
32. 傅玲靜(2013)。環境法中公民訴訟制度的再認識─由最高行政法院一〇一年度裁字第一八八八號裁定及相關裁判談起。月旦裁判時報，19，72-88。
33. 湯維建,張明哲(2019)。海峽兩岸公益訴訟比較研究及對策建議。貴州民族大學學報，2019(1)，130-182。
34. 黃娜,杜家明(2018)。社會組織參與環境公益訴訟的優化路徑。河北法學，9，191-200。
35. 賈永健(2018)。中國檢察機關提起行政公益訴訟模式重構論。武漢大學學報（哲學社會科學版），2018(5)，154-163。
36. 齊樹潔,李葉丹(2010)。臺灣環境公民訴訟制度述評。臺灣研究集刊，1，84-94。
37. 劉超(2018)。環境行政公益訴訟訴前程序省思。法學，5，160-164。
38. 劉超(2018)。環境行政公益訴訟判決形式的疏失及其完善。浙江工商大學學報，2018(5)，35-45。
39. 鞏固(2017)。美國原告資格演變及公民訴訟的影響解析。法制與社會發展，4，119-134。