漁業行政管制不確定科技證據之因應

The Resolutions of Uncertain Scientific Evidence in Fishery Regulatory Affairs

蔡達智(Dennis Tsai)

科技證據 ； 專家意見 ； 最大再生能量 ； 動物保育 ； 預防原則 ； Precaution principle ； expert opinion ； scientific evidence ； animal welfare ； maximum sustainable yield

臺灣海洋法學報

23期（2015 / 12 / 01）

117 - 147

繁體中文

科技證據不論對於公部門的立法、行政與司法機關，或從事漁業的漁民、企業、保育團體、消費者等，皆有相當大的影響力。然而，科技證據在漁業規範的理論與應用，不論是因為研究質量不足或研究方法與目的偏差的缺憾，往往處於不確定的狀態。如果還要加入更加不確定的政治、經濟、社會、文化等因素，證據呈現必定更加不確定，進而影響相關管制規範適用可能性也處於不確定。假使適用該等規範嚴重影響人民的權利，甚至科處刑事處罰，對於被規範的主體而言，恐怕會有規範不明確而感到恐懼，進而為脫法與規避管制行為。如何避免科技證據的不確定，導致適用管制規範不確定的負面效應，除應努力加強科學研究發展、發現新知之外，所有管制機關與公民應以平等充分尊重立場，以分工合作代替對抗衝突及強制處罰，求取最適當的不確定風險承擔的方法、標準與程序，最後方依不確定風險的危害高低，採取短暫或長期的預防管制措施，並應隨時檢討修正新近的科技證據及其衍生的各項管制措施，降低或避免不確定漁業科技證據帶來的不便與傷害風險。

Scientific evidence has a significant effect on any process of analysis, judgment and decision making under the fishery regulatory regime. There were uncertainties among professional expert’s opinions as evidence that may be proved to be truth. Beyond the acts of God, the scientific uncertainty could be resulted from inappropriate research objective, undue process of methodology or any other accidental factors. Except to the natural limitation on the research, the uncertain causation of fact may also exist in any complex interconnections with political, economic, social and cultural circumstances. Following this uncertain evidence to prove the unclear fact, the fishery law and regulation may not have highly possibility to be enforced precisely and exactly. At the same time, people could be suffered from the uncertain ambiguity criminal codes and procedures but highly possibility to be sentenced to jail without well define scientific evidence. In order to avoid this negative influence to the law and society, scientist should try their best to find the sophisticate work of arts which suitable for the necessity of regulatory required. Otherwise, the governmental departments and all the related people around the fishery industry shall cooperate with each other to find the best science or to balance the different but best interests from any stakeholders else. If there were not have any chance to cooperate with all the stakeholders, the last chance of balancing the interests between fishery and environment will locate on the measurements of precaution principle.

1. 牛惠之(2005)。預防原則之研究─國際環境法處理欠缺科學證據之環境風險議題之努力與爭議。台大法學論叢，34(3)，1-71。
   連結：
2. 王服清(2012)。論「預防原則」之意涵及應用。中正大學法學集刊，37，117-187。
   連結：
3. 林明鏘(2010)。由防止危害到危險預防：由德國警察任務與權限之嬗變檢討我國之警察法制。台大法學論叢，39(4)，167-212。
   連結：
4. 黃錦堂(2009)。高度科技專業性行政決定之司法控制密度─兼評臺北高等行政法院九六年度訴字第一一一七號判決。東吳法律學報，21(1)，95-127。
   連結：
5. 蔡達智(2014)。論美國潮流發電之行政管制程序。法令月刊，65(3)，63-96。
   連結：
6. ADKIN, LAURIE E.(ed.)(2009).ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT AND DEMOCRACY IN CANADA.University of British Columbia.
7. Ashley, Paul J.(2007).Fish Welfare: Current Issues in Aquaculture.APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE,104,199.
8. BAUR, DONALD C.(ed.)(2007).OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW AND POLICY.American Bar Association.
9. Berg, Paul(2006).Brilliant Science, Dark Politics, Uncertain Law.JURIMETRICS JOURNAL,46,379.
10. BORGATTI, RACHEL,BUCK, EUGENE H.(2005).Congress Research Service Report for CongressCongress Research Service Report for Congress,未出版
11. BRAITHWAITE, VICTORIA(2010).DO FISH FEEL PAIN ?.Oxford University.
12. Bryant, Beth C.(2009).Adapting to Uncertainty: Law, Science, and Management in the Steller Sea Lion Controversy.STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,28,171.
13. Bryant, Beth C.(2006).NEPA Compliance in Fisheries Management: The Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Alaskan Groundfish Fisheries and Implications for NEPA Reform.HARVARD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW,30,441.
14. Cheng, Jessica(2009).Court Ordered Listings: Center for Biological Diversity v. Fish and Game Commission.ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY,6,569.
15. Christie, Donna R.(2004).Living Marine Resources Management: A Proposal for Integration of United States Management Regime.ENVIRONMENTAL LAW,34,107.
16. COHEN, BERNARD(1985).REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE.Harvard University.
17. Crawford, Matthew D.(2009).The Timing of Challenges to Compel Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act: Should Courts Toll the General Federal Statute of Limitations?.BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW,36,497.
18. CULVER, KEITH(ed.),CASTLE, DAVID(ed.)(2008).AQUACULTURE, INNOVATION AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION.Springer.
19. Curieux-Belfond, Olivier Le,Vandelac, Louise,Caron, Joseph,Séralini, Gilles-Éric(2009).Factors to Consider before Production and Commercialization of Aquatic Genetically Modified Organisms: The Case of Transgenic Salmon.ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLICY,12,170.
20. Cury, Philippe、Miserey, Yves、李桂蜜譯(2011)。沒有魚的海洋。山岳。
21. Doremus, Holly(2007).Precaution, Science, and Learning While Doing in Natural Resource Management.WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW,82,547.
22. Doremus, Holly,Tarlock, A. Dan(2005).Science, Judgment, and Controversy in Natural Resource Regulation.PUBLIC LAND &RESOURCES LAW REVIEW,26,1.
23. Duff, John A.(2004).Offshore Management Considerations: Law and Policy Questions Related to Fish, Oil, and Wind.BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW,31,385.
24. EDMOND, GARY(ed.)(2004).EXPERTISE IN REGULATION AND LAW.Ashgate.
25. Firestone, Jeremy,Barber, Robert(2003).Fish as Pollutants: Limitations of and Crosscurrents in Law, Science, Management, and Policy.WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW,78,693.
26. Fleming, Roger,Crawford, John D.(2006).Habitat Protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act: Can It Really Contribute to Ecosystem Health in the Northwest Atlantic.OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW JOURNAL,12,43.
27. Fleming, Roger,Shelley, Peter,Brooks, Priscilla M.(2004).Changing Tides in Ocean Management: Twenty-Eight Years and Counting: Can the Magnuson-Stevens Act Deliver on Its Conservation Promise?.VERMONT LAW REVIEW,28,579.
28. FLOURNOY, ALYSON C.(ed.),DRIESEN, DAVID M.(ed.)(2010).BEYOND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.Cambridge University.
29. Fluharty, David(1996).Magnuson Fishery Management and Conservation Act Reauthorization and Fishery Management Needs in the North Pacific Region.TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,9,301.
30. Freeland, Deborah M. Hussey(2007).Maieusis Through a Gated Membrane: Getting the Science Right in Public Decisionmaking.STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,26,373.
31. Gehan, Shaun M.,Hallowell, Michele(2012).Battle to Determine the Meaning of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006: A Survey of Recent Judicial Decisions.OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW JOURNAL,18,1.
32. Gerson, Zachary H.(2010).The Unrealized Authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service to Protect National Wildlife Refuges from Surface Disturbance Due to Private Mineral Rights.STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,29,181.
33. GILLESPIE, ALEXANDER(2005).WHALING DIPLOMACY.Edward Elgar.
34. Goldberg, Steven(2007).Technology Unbound: Will Funded Libertarianism Dominate the Future.STANFORD LAW AND POLICY REVIEW,18,21.
35. Gottlieb, Charles,Hirokawa, Keith H.,Keehan, Kristin(2014).Bug Catching for the State: Gathering Baseline Ecological Information under Wave.VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,32,61.
36. Halvorson, Harlyn O.,Duff, John(2008).Offshore Aquaculture Legislation Designed to Balance Production and Protection.MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN,56,1673.
37. Hardin, Garret(1968).The Tragedy of the Commons.SCIENCE,162,1243.
38. HARRIS, DOUGLAS C.(2001).FISH, LAW, AND COLONIALISM-THE LEGAL CAPTURE OF SALMON IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.University of Toronto.
39. Heimes, Rita(2008).Managing a Fishery Through Contract: Legal Issues Raised by Sector Operating Agreements in the New England Multispecies Fishery.OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW JOURNAL,14,17.
40. Jeon, Yongil,Reid, Christopher,Squires, Dale(2008).Is there a Global Market for Tuna? Policy Implications for Tropical Tuna Fisheries.OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,39,32.
41. Joly, Julie Lurman,Reynolds, Joel,Robards, Martin(2010).Recognizing When the "Best Scientific Data Available" Isn't.STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,27,247.
42. Joyce, David B.(2004).Comment: The Evolving Role of Federal Courts in Domestic Fisheries Management.UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEW,59,83.
43. KALO, JOSEPH J.,HILDRETH, RICHARD G.,RIESER, ALISON,CHRISTIE, DONNA R.(2007).COASTAL AND OCEAN LAW.West.
44. Kelly, Ryan P.,Caldwell, Margaret R.(2013)."Not Supported by Current Science": The National Forest Management Act and the Lessons of Environmental Monitoring for the Future of Public Resources Management.STANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,32,151.
45. Kibel, Paul Stanton(2013).A Salmon Eye Lens on Climate Adaptation.OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW JOURNAL,19,65.
46. King, Dennis,Porter, Read D.,Price, Elizabeth W.(2009).Reassessing the Value of U.S. Coast Guard at Sea Fishing Enforcement.OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,40,350.
47. Koch, Laura(2008).Comment: The Promise of Wave Energy.GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,2,162.
48. KUNICH, JOHN CHARLES(2006).KILLING OUR OCEANS: DEALING WITH THE MASS EXTINCTION OF MARINE LIFE.Praeger.
49. LAITOS, JAN G.(2002).NATURAL RESOURCES LAW.West.
50. MacDonald, John M.(1995).Appreciating the Precautionary Principle as An Ethical Evolution in Ocean Management.OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,26,255.
51. Macinko, Seth(2007).Fishing Communities as Special Places: The Promise and Problems of Place in Contemporary Fisheries Management.OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW JOURNAL,13,71.
52. Paul(2006).Brilliant Science, Dark Politics, Uncertain Law.JURIMETRICS JOURNAL,46,379.
53. PERCIVAL, ROBERT V.(2006).ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: LAW, SCIENCE, AND POLICY.Aspen.
54. Perry, Avi(2010).Comment: Rethinking the Adequacy of Informal Property Rules: Some Evidence from Maine'S Lobster Fishery.OCEAN AND COASTAL LAW JOURNAL,15,85.
55. RAYFUSE, ROSEMARY(ed.),WEISFELT, NICOLE(ed.)(2012).THE CHALLENGE OF FOOD SECURITY: INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS.Edward Elgar.
56. REECE, HELEN(ed.)(1998).LAW AND SCIENCE.Oxford University.
57. Rose, J. D.,Arlinghaus, R.,Cooke, S. J.,Diggles, B. K.,Sawynok, W.,Stevens, E. D.,Wynne, C. D. L.(2014).Can Fish Really Feel Pain?.FISH AND FISHERIES,15,97.
58. ROSIE, COONEY(ed.),DICKSON, BARNEY(ed.)(2005).BIODIVERSITY AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IN CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE.Earthscan.
59. SADELEER, NICOLAS DE(ed.)(2008).IMPLEMENTING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.Earthscan.
60. SCARFE, A. DAVID(ed.),LEE, CHENG-SHENG(ed.),O'BRYEN, PATRICIA J.(ed.)(2006).AQUACULTURE BIOSECURITY.Blackwell.
61. Sovacool, Benjamin K.(2009).A Game of Cat and Fish: How to Restore the Balance in Sustainable Fisheries Management.OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,40,97.
62. STALLWORTHY, MARK(2002).SUSTAINABILITY, LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT: A LEGAL ANALYSIS.Cavendish.
63. Sunstein, Cass R.(1997).Which Risks First.UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LEGAL FORUM,1997,101.
64. SUNSTEIN, CASS R.(2005).LAWS OF FEAR: BEYOND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.Cambridge University.
65. Tanaka, Yoshifumi(2008).Reflections on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Genetic Resources in the Deep Seabed Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction.OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,39,129.
66. Vanderzwaag, David(2002).The Precautionary Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides.OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,33,165.
67. VanderZwaag, David,Chao, Gloria,Covan, Mark(2002).Canadian Aquaculture and the Principles of Sustainable Development: Gauging the Law and Policy Tides and Charting a Course.QUEEN'S LAW JOURNAL,28,279.
68. VERMEULE, ADRIAN(2006).JUDGING UNDER UNCERTAINTY: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION.Harvard University Press.
69. VERMEULE, ADRIAN(2014).THE CONSTITUTION OF RISK.Cambridge University.
70. von Zharen, W. M.(1999).An Ecopolicy Perspective for Sustaining Living Marine Species.OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,30(1)
71. WEBER, MICHAEL L.(2002).FROM ABUNDANCE TO SCARCITY: A HISTORY OF U.S. MARINE FISHERIES POLICY.Island.
72. Wilson, Graham M.(2004).Note, A Day on the Fish Farm: FDA and the Regulation of Aquaculture.VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL,23,351.
73. 吳豪人、黃居正(2006)。對市民財產制度的再檢視：由司馬庫斯部落公約到自然資源的歸屬。台灣國際法季刊，3(1)，207-263。
74. 宋燕輝(1999)。美國與加拿大在西北太平洋有關鮭魚捕魚權糾紛之研究。美歐季刊，13(4)，403-440。
75. 林素鳳(2007)。論我國之環境訴訟。銘傳大學法學論叢，8，49-65。
76. 法學叢刊雜誌社編(2006)。跨世紀法學新思維：法學叢刊創刊五十週年。法學叢刊社。
77. 施文真(2010)。「人類共同遺產」原則與「共有資源」管理─概念定位與制度要素之比較研究。科技法學評論，7(1)，55-118。
78. 張訓嘉(2006)。中石化安順廠污染廠址之法律求償實務經驗。律師雜誌，323，24-34。
79. 陳荔彤(2001)。從國際法論美國漁業法律制度。海運學報，8，99-124。
80. 陳瑞麟(2005)。論科學評價與其在科技政策中的涵意。台灣科技法律與政策論叢，2(4)，37-71。
81. 湯德宗(1990)。美國環境法論集。自版。
82. 黃之暘、劉秉忠、李國誥(2000)。養殖新契機，觀賞魚產業回顧與前瞻。海大漁推，1-26。
83. 黃異(1999)。漁業法規。渤海堂。
84. 劉宗德(1998)。行政法基本原理。學林。
85. 劉翠溶編(2006)。四分溪論學集：慶祝李遠哲先生七十壽辰
86. 蔡志方(2004)。行政救濟與行政法學。正典。
87. 蔡達智(2010)。水產養殖漁業安全規範之研究。正典。
88. 蔡達智(1997)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中興大學。
89. 蔡達智(2015)。基因改造魚對人體及自然環境的影響及其因應。世新法學，8(2)，353-383。
90. 蔡達智(2014)。水產養殖動物保護及其權利。興大法學，16，119-164。
91. 簡資修(2004)。經濟推理與法律。元照。

1. 蔡達智(2019)。動物園資訊公開管制規範之探討－最高行政法院101年度判字第171號判決評釋。高大法學論叢，15(1)，31-35+37+39。
2. 蔡達智(2019)。智慧農業資訊管制規範之研究。華岡法粹，67，85-139。
3. (2016)。從動物園設置之必要性論其經營與照養管制原則。華岡法粹，60，29-64。
4. (2019)。機器人法律地位及其應有規範取向。興大法學，25，1-41。
5. (2020)。精神病人的強制醫療與優惠待遇。法學叢刊，65(3)，57-91。