法院在氣候變遷規範競爭與政治角力中的角色與策略：從歐洲法院民航排放權交意指令判決談起

The Role of Court in the Normative Competition and Political Confrontation in Climate Change Era: The Case C-366/10 of European Court of Justice and its Implication

10.6199/NTULJ.2013.42.04.01

林春元(Chun-Yuan Lin)

全球行政法 ； 民用航空 ； 排放權交易 ； 溫室氣體 ； 歐洲法院 ； 氣候變遷 ； 國際民用航空組織 ； 歐盟 ； global administrative law ； civil aviation ； emission trading system ； greenhouse gas ； European Court of Justice ； climate change ； ICAO ； European Union

臺大法學論叢

42卷4期（2013 / 12 / 01）

1147 - 1202

繁體中文

在氣候變遷領域，法律開始發展多元規範結構，與司法訴訟的趨勢，法院因此被要求涉入高度政治性的案件，卻欠缺明確規範指引。法院究竟是要依循傳統法學理論，中立適用規範解決法律爭議，還是應該轉換其角色與論述方式，更能回應當前的需求，成為近年來法學的重要課題。透過政治脈絡與法院規範論理兩個軸線，本文分析歐洲法院的Case C-366/10判決，並且以全球行政法的視角檢視法院角色與論理。本案涉及歐盟2008年將民用航空的溫室氣體排放納入排放權交易系統的指令，背後多重政治角力透過規範衝突的形式呈現在法院面前。法院以詳盡而嚴謹的規範論述做出判決，卻未能平息各方爭議，反而導致歐盟宣布暫緩實施指令。本文認為，鑲嵌在全球行政法的結構中的氣候變遷規範競爭爭議，法院判決的正當性無法仰賴傳統的法院角色定位與規範論述。在全球行政法的結構中，法院成為政治行動者，追求其政治目標，卻同時必須注意到規範結構的變動與政治現實的平衡。法院必須穿梭在多元規範結構與多重政治角力之間，一方面要意識到全球規範結構的變遷，調整規範論述基礎，另方面必須注意到規範背後的制衡與政治平衡，才可能面對未來全球行政法的挑戰，發揮其適當功能。

Climate change has triggered the development of a multiple normative structure and climate change litigations. Courts around the world have to deal with cases with serious political confrontation in a multiple normative structure. Should the court objectively interpret the law and deal with only legal issue, or it should reconsider its role, discourse and strategies in the dynamic social context, is one important issue concerns legal scholars.With the lights shed from the theory of global administrative law, this article examines the political context and normative discourse of Case C-366/10 made by the European Court of Justice.The article argues that, the emergence of global administrative law has undermined the role of the court and the basis its decision relies on. In the structure of global administrative law, the court is a political actor who has political agenda and purses them through judgments and normative arguments. In order to deal with highly political issue in the structure of multiple normative structure, the court should develop judicial strategy in the between of norms and politics. The Court in C-366/10 fails to take the emergence of global administrative law seriously, thus fails to recognize its proper role and develop the best judicial strategies.

1. 張亞中(2001)。全球治理：主體與權力的解析。問題與研究，40(4)，1-23。
   連結：
2. ICAO (2010). Update on the continuing progress of ICAO on international aviation and climate change: Ad Hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/smsn/igo/059.pdf
3. UNFCCC (2007). Compilation and Synthesis of Fourth National Communications (U.N. Doc. FCCC/SBI/2007/INR6/Add.1). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600004368#beg
4. UNFCCC (2002). Report of the subsidiary body for Scientific and Technological Advice on its sixteenth session, held at Bonn (U.N. Doc. FCCC/SBSTA/2002/6). Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600001969
5. Depledge, J. (2000). Tracing the origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An article-by-article textual history (U.N. Doc. FCCC/TP/2000/2). Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.htm
6. Abeyratne, R.(2001).ICAO: Some recent developments in aviation and environmental protection regulation.Environmental Policy Law,32(1),32-40.
7. Anger, A.,Köhler, J.(2010).Including aviation emissions in the EU ETS: Much ado about nothing? A review.Transport Policy,17,38-46.
8. Bogojevic, S.(2012).Legalising environmental leadership: A comment on the CJEU's ruling in C-366/10 on the inclusion of aviation in the EU Emission Trading Scheme.Journal of Environmental Law,24(2),345-356.
9. Chang, W.-C.(2010).Strategic judicial responses in highly politically charged cases: East asian experiences.International Journal of Constitutional Law,8(4),885-910.
10. Engel, K. H.(2007).Harmonizing regulatory and litigation approaches to climate change mitigation: Incorporating tradable emissions offsets into common law remedies.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,155,1563-1603.
11. Epstein, R. A.(2011).Beware of prods and pleas: A defense of the conventional views on torts and administrative law in the context of global warming.Yale Law Journal,121,317-333.
12. Ewing, B.,Kysar, D. A.(2011).Prods and pleas: Limited government in an era of unlimited harm.Yale Law Journal,121,350-424.
13. Goodwin, D.(2008).Aviation, climate change and the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme.Journal of Planning and Environment Law,6,742-750.
14. Havel, B.,Mulligan, J.(2012).The triumph of politics: Reflections on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union validating the inclusion of non-EU airlines in the Emission Trading Scheme.Air and Space Law,37,3-33.
15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(2007).,未出版
16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(2007).contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changecontribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,未出版
17. Kingsbury, B.(2009).The concept of law in global administrative law.European Journal of International Law,20,23-57.
18. Kingsbury, B.,Krisch, N.,Stewart, R. B.(2005).The emergence of global administrative law.Law & Contemporary Problems,68,15-61.
19. Krisch, N.(2006).The pluralism of global administrative law.European Journal of International Law,17,247-278.
20. Lan, H.(2011).Comments on EU aviation ETS directive and EU - China aviation emission dispute.Revue juridique Thémis,47,589-607.
21. Macintosh, A.,Wallance, L.(2009).International aviation emission to 2025: Can emissions be stabilized without restricting demand?.Energy Policy,37(1),264-273.
22. Mayer, B.(2012).Annotation, Case C-366/10, Air Transportation Association of American and others v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change.Common Market Law Review,49(3),1113-1140.
23. Mehling, M.,Leonardo M.(2007).The EU and climate change: Leading the way toward a post-2012 regime?.Carbon & Climate Law Review,1,45-52.
24. Miller, H. L.(1998).Civil aircraft emissions and international treaty law.Journal of Air Law & Commerce,63(4),697-730.
25. Miller, M. E.(2010).The right issue, the wrong branches: Arguments against climate change nuisance claims.Michigan Law Review,109,257-290.
26. Oberthuer, S.(2003).Institutional interaction to address greenhouse gas emissions from international transport: ICAO, IMO and the Kyoto Protocol.Climate Policy,3(3),191-205.
27. Peretti, T. J.(2001).In defense of a political court.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
28. Quenivet, N.(2010).Binding the United Nations to human rights norms by way of the laws of treaties.George Washington International Law Review,42,587-621.
29. Reagan, D. B.(2008).Putting international aviation into the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: Can Europe do it flying solo?.Boston College Envtal Affairs Law Review,35,349-384.
30. Schroeder, H.,Bulkeley, H.(2009).Global cities and the governance of climate change: What is the role of law in cities?.Fordham Urban Law Journal,36,313-359.
31. Shapiro, M.(1981).Courts - A comparative and political analysis.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
32. Switzer, S.(2012).Aviation and emissions trading in the European Union: Pie in the sky or compatible with international law.Ecology Law Currents,39(1),1-12.
33. Veno, J.(2007).Flying the unfriendly skies: The European Union's new proposal to include aviation in their Emissions Trading Scheme.Journal of Air Law and Commerce,72,659-687.
34. 林春元(2012)。台北=Taipei，國立台灣大學法律學研究所=National Taiwan University College of Law。
35. 施文真(2011)。初探納入航空業之歐盟排放權交易制度與其他國際法義務的互動關係。政大法學評論，120，271-337。
36. 施文真(2009)。溫室氣體減量法草案簡評：以排放權交易為主要分析對象。月旦法學雜誌，174，47-68。
37. 張文貞(2002)。面對全球化：台灣行政法發展的契機與挑戰。當代公法新論（中）：翁岳生教授七秩誕辰祝壽論文集，台北=Taipei:
38. 曹俊漢(2009)。全球化與全球治理：理論發展的建構與詮釋。台北=Taipei:韋伯=Weber。
39. 葉俊榮(2011)。氣候變遷、法院與司法全球化。台灣法學會2011年年度法學會議，台北=Taipei:
40. 葉俊榮(2011)。氣候變遷的治理模式。氣候變遷下的永續環境治理：法律與政策的因應模式學術研討會，台北=Taipei:
41. 葉俊榮(1999)。全球環境議題：臺灣觀點。台北=Taipei:巨流=Chiliu。
42. 葉俊榮(2012)。臺灣氣候變遷政策體檢。氣候變遷政策與法律通訊，4，10-12。
43. 蔣本基、顧洋、鄭耀文、林志森(2006)。我國溫室氣體減量整體因應策略。科學與工程技術期刊，2(1)，1-8。

1. (2015)。環境影響評估納入氣候變遷的司法途徑－美國法的發展與啟示。中原財經法學，35，169-237。
2. (2018)。論氣候變遷脈絡下國家賠償構成要件的解釋。中原財經法學，41，66-117。