有別於傳統的命令暨管制的規範方式，市場制度的引進，期望著以具誘因的方式，鼓勵業者，在符合其成本利益分析下，自動、積極地遵守環境規範，並因而減輕在完全依賴行政機關之舊有管制模式下的許多缺失。以京都議定書中的排放交易制度為例，即係藉由污染排放的交易，欲達到既能維持已開法國家的既有的發展，並能確保開發中國家對經濟、工業等發展之迫切需求。並在其平衡中，促進對環境的保護。
近來國內有越來越多人士主張應實行此一制度，環保署基本上也朝著這個方向在走。並有總統候選人將之納入其環境政策。似乎每個人都期待此一政策能對現今台灣的環保問題注入一強心劑，並認為此一制度的引進，即可解決存在已久的爭議，並完善對環境的保護。然而，參考美國的法制，我們似乎仍應採取謹慎、保留的態度。至少在制度設計上，應考量美國在實際執行下所產生的缺失。
美國此一制度之運用，最有名、也號稱最成功的例子，即是其清潔空氣法中酸雨計劃下的排放交易制度，稱之為Cap-and-Trade。簡言之，就是設立一個總排放量的上限(Cap)，而在此一上限內，讓業者基於其需求，進行「污染排放權」的交易。也就是說，甲工廠認為其受分配的排放量不足應付其生產所需，他可向其他業者購買該權利。相對的，若是乙工廠基於其科技研發之提升，降低原有的排放量，使原先受分配污染排放量有所剩餘，乙工廠即可以將之交易出去，進而獲利。以經濟學的角度來看，若乙工廠的汙染控制成本低於甲工廠的汙染控制成本，則應由乙工廠來進行污染控制的工作。
簡單地說，支持者認為此一制度對業者、政府，乃至於社會，都是符合成本效益分析的。其並能促進污染防治技術的更新與進步。當然，在行政上更是具便捷性。
但是，反對者也提出實証的例子加以反駁。污染排放權的分配會產生對新業者的公平性的問題，而新業者在防治技術上、法規對之要求上，反而是對環境較友善的。此外，業者的報告義務以及監測機制的落實，更是此一制度成敗的關鍵。而監測技術其實是一昂貴、甚至可能在科技上是尚不可行。因此是否真的符合成本效益，也會是一個問題。
另外，還有環境倫理上的質疑。除了是否有所謂的「污染權」外，在交易制度下，會造成污染集中在特定的地區(hot spot)。依賴著交易制度，而非根本地對污染加以禁止，其實也存在著政策上將人民的健康及環境，也一併地被交易出去了。論者也指出，美國制度之所以「成功」，最大的原因還是在於行政上對該上限的設定，而非交易本身。
此外，學者更是一針見血地指出，在污染減量上(針對電廠)，德國花了六年達到百分之九十的減量，而美國花了近三十年只減少了三分之一。有鉛汽油的完全禁用，在美國花了23年，而且之所以成功，最後還是靠著國會的禁令，而非交易制度。
另外必須提出的是，在學者的觀察下，美國此一制度之所以號稱很成功，其實是業者在計劃執行之初，因著一開始的分配以及優惠措施，透過儲存的機制，將其多餘的排放權儲存其來。這表示，在未來這些排放權還是會被使用抑或是被交易出來的。
此外，雖然針對違反排放限制的業者可加以制裁，但是，在台灣，基於相關權責單位人力、物力等資源的有限性，執行的問題往往更是讓人擔心的。
综合以觀，政府在立法上著實應當謹慎為之，而非一味地繼受他國「先進」的法律。
當然，環保的落實，最重要的仍是公民意識的覺醒，讓人民體認環境對你我存在的重要性，而非一味地追求發展。台灣長期以來，從政府到民間，將經濟發展凌駕於環境維護之上，即便在憲法增修條文中有規定所謂的「兼籌並顧條款」，甚至在環境基本法中言明，當經濟發展與環境保護有所衝突時，應以環境做為優先的考量。可是，在這樣「先進」的立法中，我們的環境是否真的改善了嗎?
2008年1月24日 星期四
2008年1月22日 星期二
I have a dream--台灣的民權運動
社會的平等，絕對不是與生俱來的，而是必須經過掙扎、焠鍊的。
當美國人於今天(1/21)紀念著馬丁路得金恩博士時，回首過去，固然所看到的是前人留著血淚所走出的一條美國社會融合之路，但是，金恩博士的那一個夢，是否真的實現，卻仍在未定之天。歐巴馬是否能成功問鼎白宮，確實是一個值得觀察的指標，但絕非就可因此劃下句點。這一條路還很漫長。
美國民權運動(Civil Right Movement)的濫觴，可溯及1941年的Mitchell v. U.S.一案。它打破了當時種族隔離的藩籬(Jim Crow)，提供了司法上一個重要的先例，使得憲法上的平等保護，可以真正的落實到生活上，尤其是對當時的非洲裔的美國人，開啟了一扇亮光。案件的當事人Mitchell其實是當時美國眾議院的議員，身為國會中唯一的非洲裔美國人，更是全國位居政治最高位的非洲裔美國人，卻仍在搭乘火車時遭到了不平等的對待。只因為他是「黑人」。他本以為因著他的身分可以獲得較平等的對待，但諷刺的是，白人在歧視上倒是符合了「平等」，他最後仍是被趕出了車廂。在聽證上他說到，他本想據理力爭，但是當他想到他可不願意成為第一個被處私刑的國會議員時，他也只能默默離開。
首席大法官Hughes在其意見書中指出，只因Mitchell的種族，而對之有不平等的待遇，嚴重破壞美國憲法增修條文第十四條對平等保護之規定。本案雖然並未直接處理當時普遍的「分離但平等」(segregation but equal)的政策，但其結果的影響，卻是創造了後續訴訟得以成功挑戰當時不合理政策的重要依據。
姑且不論Hughes大法官做出此一判決當時的社會政經背景。其實當時本已有一系列的法令可用來主張平等權保障，像是1866及1875年的民權法案、甚至是州際貿易法，更不用說是美國憲法上的第13、14以及第15的增修條文。然而，成也司法、敗也司法，最高法院卻在Dred Scott(1857)，Civil Rights cases(1883)以及Plessy(1896)之一系列判決中，將種族歧視予以正當化，使得美國社會在1930年代以前，分離且平等的觀念像是種族仇恨的種子一樣被深深地植入人心，變得牢不可破。因此可以想見Hughes在做出此一決定時所必須承擔的壓力。(其間也涉及到當時最高法院成員結構在羅斯福總統主政期間經歷了重大的轉變)
必須一提的是，大法官Harlan在惡名昭彰的Plessy一案中，即已提出其發人深省的不同意見：我們的憲法是沒有種族差異的。(Our constitution is color-blind) 這樣的見解是對也是錯。因為美國憲法開宗明義地說到：我們全國人民(We the people of the United States…)，在其立國先賢的制憲概念下，是沒有包括「黑人」的。但是，這樣的解釋當然很不可思議，卻是當時白人根深柢固的觀念。而大法官Harlan便一針見血地道出其中的荒謬。只是社會必須花近六十年的時間，才將其少數意見變成主流見解。也就是到了1954年的Brown一案，在Warren主持下的最高法院才正式宣告「分離但平等」的政策是違憲的。
今天，金恩博士已用生命去實現他的夢想，歐巴馬也正努力地追求其白宮之夢。但是，我們不要忘記，平等的社會是多麼得來不易，即使是像美國這樣以民主自居並種族熔爐的大國，一路走來仍是跌跌撞撞。反觀台灣，本著海洋國家，理當有著更寬闊包容的心，卻在對待不同種族上，像是外籍新娘、外籍勞工，乃至於漢族對原住民，似乎也重蹈了美國的錯誤。或許可以諷刺地說，反正在政客操弄下，同為漢族的本、外省人都可如此對立，遑論不同種族間的平等對待。但是，良善如台灣人民，我們實在應當警醒，平等，也包括了自由與民主，它們就像是脆弱的花朵，著實需要我們細心加以呵護。我們也可從美國經驗中看到，司法者在其中所扮演的角色是何等的重要。
曾幾何時，我們可以看到會有女性、抑或是原住民的總統參選人，要到何時我們也能夠看到外籍新娘、甚至是外籍勞工在這塊土地落地生根，豐富了它的土壤。
而這不應只是一個夢。
當美國人於今天(1/21)紀念著馬丁路得金恩博士時，回首過去，固然所看到的是前人留著血淚所走出的一條美國社會融合之路，但是，金恩博士的那一個夢，是否真的實現，卻仍在未定之天。歐巴馬是否能成功問鼎白宮，確實是一個值得觀察的指標，但絕非就可因此劃下句點。這一條路還很漫長。
美國民權運動(Civil Right Movement)的濫觴，可溯及1941年的Mitchell v. U.S.一案。它打破了當時種族隔離的藩籬(Jim Crow)，提供了司法上一個重要的先例，使得憲法上的平等保護，可以真正的落實到生活上，尤其是對當時的非洲裔的美國人，開啟了一扇亮光。案件的當事人Mitchell其實是當時美國眾議院的議員，身為國會中唯一的非洲裔美國人，更是全國位居政治最高位的非洲裔美國人，卻仍在搭乘火車時遭到了不平等的對待。只因為他是「黑人」。他本以為因著他的身分可以獲得較平等的對待，但諷刺的是，白人在歧視上倒是符合了「平等」，他最後仍是被趕出了車廂。在聽證上他說到，他本想據理力爭，但是當他想到他可不願意成為第一個被處私刑的國會議員時，他也只能默默離開。
首席大法官Hughes在其意見書中指出，只因Mitchell的種族，而對之有不平等的待遇，嚴重破壞美國憲法增修條文第十四條對平等保護之規定。本案雖然並未直接處理當時普遍的「分離但平等」(segregation but equal)的政策，但其結果的影響，卻是創造了後續訴訟得以成功挑戰當時不合理政策的重要依據。
姑且不論Hughes大法官做出此一判決當時的社會政經背景。其實當時本已有一系列的法令可用來主張平等權保障，像是1866及1875年的民權法案、甚至是州際貿易法，更不用說是美國憲法上的第13、14以及第15的增修條文。然而，成也司法、敗也司法，最高法院卻在Dred Scott(1857)，Civil Rights cases(1883)以及Plessy(1896)之一系列判決中，將種族歧視予以正當化，使得美國社會在1930年代以前，分離且平等的觀念像是種族仇恨的種子一樣被深深地植入人心，變得牢不可破。因此可以想見Hughes在做出此一決定時所必須承擔的壓力。(其間也涉及到當時最高法院成員結構在羅斯福總統主政期間經歷了重大的轉變)
必須一提的是，大法官Harlan在惡名昭彰的Plessy一案中，即已提出其發人深省的不同意見：我們的憲法是沒有種族差異的。(Our constitution is color-blind) 這樣的見解是對也是錯。因為美國憲法開宗明義地說到：我們全國人民(We the people of the United States…)，在其立國先賢的制憲概念下，是沒有包括「黑人」的。但是，這樣的解釋當然很不可思議，卻是當時白人根深柢固的觀念。而大法官Harlan便一針見血地道出其中的荒謬。只是社會必須花近六十年的時間，才將其少數意見變成主流見解。也就是到了1954年的Brown一案，在Warren主持下的最高法院才正式宣告「分離但平等」的政策是違憲的。
今天，金恩博士已用生命去實現他的夢想，歐巴馬也正努力地追求其白宮之夢。但是，我們不要忘記，平等的社會是多麼得來不易，即使是像美國這樣以民主自居並種族熔爐的大國，一路走來仍是跌跌撞撞。反觀台灣，本著海洋國家，理當有著更寬闊包容的心，卻在對待不同種族上，像是外籍新娘、外籍勞工，乃至於漢族對原住民，似乎也重蹈了美國的錯誤。或許可以諷刺地說，反正在政客操弄下，同為漢族的本、外省人都可如此對立，遑論不同種族間的平等對待。但是，良善如台灣人民，我們實在應當警醒，平等，也包括了自由與民主，它們就像是脆弱的花朵，著實需要我們細心加以呵護。我們也可從美國經驗中看到，司法者在其中所扮演的角色是何等的重要。
曾幾何時，我們可以看到會有女性、抑或是原住民的總統參選人，要到何時我們也能夠看到外籍新娘、甚至是外籍勞工在這塊土地落地生根，豐富了它的土壤。
而這不應只是一個夢。
2008年1月17日 星期四
現代民主社會下的環境正義
Topic: To Restore Environmental Justice in our modern democratic society
Justice is a contested concept. Some people claim, as does libertarian Robert Nozick, for example, that justice requires absolute respect for property right, even if this results in great inequality between rich and poor.[1] Others, such as the liberal contractarian John Rawls, believe, to the contrary, that justice requires maximum equality compatible with individual incentives needed to promote economic growth.[2]
According to Ronald Dworkin, the concept of Justice, which rests on the uncontroversial claim, championed by and explained well by Will Kymlicka, is to restate the principle of equal consideration of interests, which all human beings are of worthy moral consideration.[3] Unequal treatment of human beings must therefore be justified, and such justification requires recourse to moral consideration or other values.
Further, when the social justice got involved the environmental affairs, there is so-called Environmental Justice emerged. The concept of Environmental Justice includes fair treatments of all races, cultures, incomes and education levels with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.[4] Robert Bullard had identified five basic elements of the environmental justice framework in 90s: (1) a right of all individuals to be protected from pollution; (2) a preference for prevention strategies; (3) a shift to polluters and dischargers of the burdens of proof; (4) a definition of discrimination that includes disparate impacts and statistical evidence; and (5) an emphasis on targeted action to redress unequal risk burdens.[5]
However, studies show that poor and minority people are more likely than their white counterparts to live near freeways, sewer treatment plants, municipal and hazardous waste landfills, incinerators, and other noxious facilities. The environmental justice movement claims that such disproportion is due to racism and classism in the sitting of locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) (even including taking property from the poor or minority people to private business or developer[6]), in the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, and in the remediation of hazardous sites.[7]
The disproportionate location of exposure to toxic pollution in poor minority communities is the result of various development patterns.[8] From the aspect of industry, a company wishing to locate a hazardous waste facility may unconsciously follow a path of least resistance. This approach would target land of relatively low value and minimal zoning restrictions without considering the composition of the local community. On the other side, the poor or the minority people tend to live in areas of lower land values and mixed industrial/residential uses and, as a result, are disproportionately affected by decisions relating to siting hazardous facilities.[9] Hence, there is a trade-offs existing between economic security and environmental degradation. The poor and minority people would like to get job rather than a better environment.[10]
In the very beginning, the environmental movement and advocates for civil rights and social justice were separated. Along with its development, in presenting these challenges, communities have relied upon a number of legal tools, including claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, environmental statutes, and common law tort claims. In addition, the government has issued the Executive Order No. 12,898 and EPA’s interim guidance intended to bring agencies into promoting environmental justice. However, all of these legal tools have their own limitations and have also been relatively unsuccessful, partly for technical legal reasons, and partly because the underlying problem is the political and economic incapacitation of the poor and minority people.
In any event, the starting point is that the government has an obligation to protect the environment, and safety/health of the public. In our modern democratic society, to achieve its goal, the government action, especially administrative agency decision, at least has to meet the requirements of the due process.
All procedural protections are to check the government action. The fundamental values of procedure include: transparency, accountability, and participation.[11] According to Paul Craig, the pluralist conception of “democracy” places stress upon process considerations.[12] It also fosters interest representation with the object of ensuring that those affected groups by agency decision will be able to participate the decision-making process.[13]
However, for those poor and minority communities, on the situation of lacking economic and political strength, how do they substantively participate the process of democracy? How do we increase the strength of economics and politics for the poor or minority people to address the trade-off? What should we do to improve environmental injustice in today’s complex society? According to the development of this movement, although there are many legal tools people can use to assert their own right, most of them do not work well to protect the poor and persons of color. Is there any positive way to overcome the obstacle and achieve the protection?
Hence, we should start from the correction of decision-making procedure to re-build the basic values of due process then to put much weight on the concern addressing the social justice, such as shifting the burden of proof to industries and adopting stricter standard of judicial review on economic inequality for promoting the civil rights. Finally, because of the scientific uncertainty and the approach “err on the side of safety”, we should establish the fundamental and positive environmental policy of adopting Precautionary principle for the modern environmental protection.
Today, the common interests of environmentalists and social justice advocates, through the coalition, are advanced by the environmental justice movement.[14] Therefore, when we face the paradoxes of Race, Law, and Inequality in the society of the United States, environmental injustice can be a good example to show what role scholars can play. Along with the development of environmental justice movement, this paper is trying to propose the positive solutions that not only right the wrongs of the pasts, but also achieve the environmental justice.
Justice is a contested concept. Some people claim, as does libertarian Robert Nozick, for example, that justice requires absolute respect for property right, even if this results in great inequality between rich and poor.[1] Others, such as the liberal contractarian John Rawls, believe, to the contrary, that justice requires maximum equality compatible with individual incentives needed to promote economic growth.[2]
According to Ronald Dworkin, the concept of Justice, which rests on the uncontroversial claim, championed by and explained well by Will Kymlicka, is to restate the principle of equal consideration of interests, which all human beings are of worthy moral consideration.[3] Unequal treatment of human beings must therefore be justified, and such justification requires recourse to moral consideration or other values.
Further, when the social justice got involved the environmental affairs, there is so-called Environmental Justice emerged. The concept of Environmental Justice includes fair treatments of all races, cultures, incomes and education levels with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.[4] Robert Bullard had identified five basic elements of the environmental justice framework in 90s: (1) a right of all individuals to be protected from pollution; (2) a preference for prevention strategies; (3) a shift to polluters and dischargers of the burdens of proof; (4) a definition of discrimination that includes disparate impacts and statistical evidence; and (5) an emphasis on targeted action to redress unequal risk burdens.[5]
However, studies show that poor and minority people are more likely than their white counterparts to live near freeways, sewer treatment plants, municipal and hazardous waste landfills, incinerators, and other noxious facilities. The environmental justice movement claims that such disproportion is due to racism and classism in the sitting of locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) (even including taking property from the poor or minority people to private business or developer[6]), in the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, and in the remediation of hazardous sites.[7]
The disproportionate location of exposure to toxic pollution in poor minority communities is the result of various development patterns.[8] From the aspect of industry, a company wishing to locate a hazardous waste facility may unconsciously follow a path of least resistance. This approach would target land of relatively low value and minimal zoning restrictions without considering the composition of the local community. On the other side, the poor or the minority people tend to live in areas of lower land values and mixed industrial/residential uses and, as a result, are disproportionately affected by decisions relating to siting hazardous facilities.[9] Hence, there is a trade-offs existing between economic security and environmental degradation. The poor and minority people would like to get job rather than a better environment.[10]
In the very beginning, the environmental movement and advocates for civil rights and social justice were separated. Along with its development, in presenting these challenges, communities have relied upon a number of legal tools, including claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, environmental statutes, and common law tort claims. In addition, the government has issued the Executive Order No. 12,898 and EPA’s interim guidance intended to bring agencies into promoting environmental justice. However, all of these legal tools have their own limitations and have also been relatively unsuccessful, partly for technical legal reasons, and partly because the underlying problem is the political and economic incapacitation of the poor and minority people.
In any event, the starting point is that the government has an obligation to protect the environment, and safety/health of the public. In our modern democratic society, to achieve its goal, the government action, especially administrative agency decision, at least has to meet the requirements of the due process.
All procedural protections are to check the government action. The fundamental values of procedure include: transparency, accountability, and participation.[11] According to Paul Craig, the pluralist conception of “democracy” places stress upon process considerations.[12] It also fosters interest representation with the object of ensuring that those affected groups by agency decision will be able to participate the decision-making process.[13]
However, for those poor and minority communities, on the situation of lacking economic and political strength, how do they substantively participate the process of democracy? How do we increase the strength of economics and politics for the poor or minority people to address the trade-off? What should we do to improve environmental injustice in today’s complex society? According to the development of this movement, although there are many legal tools people can use to assert their own right, most of them do not work well to protect the poor and persons of color. Is there any positive way to overcome the obstacle and achieve the protection?
Hence, we should start from the correction of decision-making procedure to re-build the basic values of due process then to put much weight on the concern addressing the social justice, such as shifting the burden of proof to industries and adopting stricter standard of judicial review on economic inequality for promoting the civil rights. Finally, because of the scientific uncertainty and the approach “err on the side of safety”, we should establish the fundamental and positive environmental policy of adopting Precautionary principle for the modern environmental protection.
Today, the common interests of environmentalists and social justice advocates, through the coalition, are advanced by the environmental justice movement.[14] Therefore, when we face the paradoxes of Race, Law, and Inequality in the society of the United States, environmental injustice can be a good example to show what role scholars can play. Along with the development of environmental justice movement, this paper is trying to propose the positive solutions that not only right the wrongs of the pasts, but also achieve the environmental justice.
2008年1月16日 星期三
資訊時代下的環境保護
The Development of Environmental Protection in Information Age--Using information as a regulatory tool in U.S. and the trend in Taiwan
Information issues are central to the challenge of environmental protection. The technological advances of the information age offer the opportunity to promote environmental protection more data-driven and analytically rigorous.On the other hand, the conventional approaches such as command-and-control have been criticized and required to be reformed.
Therefore, people would like to use the alternative method-Information Regulation (IR)-which can correct those defects of existing legal system and also provide more efficiency and certainty to achieve environmental protection.For the agency perspective, this approach will achieve the effectiveness and efficiency of enforcement and implementation.
On the industry side, there will be incentives for facilities to cooperate with the agency voluntarily. For the public aspect, people can have access to the database to help make informed decisions and to oversee the industry performance.However, the primary questions should be of what information will enhance the understanding of the risk the public face, how much the information needs to be released, and to whom must be directly addressed.
Environmental regulation in U.S. has shifted substantially from traditional direct regulatory approach, such as the agency’s mandatory rules, to the use of varied and more flexible regulatory strategies. Proponent asserts that the information reported by industries can also enhance transparency and accountability of administration, because the data subjects the environmental performance of facilities to a scrutiny of their peers, competitors, consumers, communities, and agencies.
Moreover, about how to make sure the needed information has required quantity and quality and accuracy, advocates have emphasized that the regulation must facilitate and expand the scope and sophistication of performance monitoring and benchmarking, providing additional depth and dimension available to firms themselves and external parties.
Hence, by referring to the U.S. experience, the Taiwanese government should be cautious when establishing the new approach of using information as a tool to achieve triple wins of the agency, the industry, and the public.
Finally, along with the development of using information in many other countries, like in China, India, and Korea, increasing practical experience on informational regulation and perfecting its legal framework, through the comparative approach presented in this paper, will enhance the concept and achieve the environmental protection in the Asia Pacific.
Information issues are central to the challenge of environmental protection. The technological advances of the information age offer the opportunity to promote environmental protection more data-driven and analytically rigorous.On the other hand, the conventional approaches such as command-and-control have been criticized and required to be reformed.
Therefore, people would like to use the alternative method-Information Regulation (IR)-which can correct those defects of existing legal system and also provide more efficiency and certainty to achieve environmental protection.For the agency perspective, this approach will achieve the effectiveness and efficiency of enforcement and implementation.
On the industry side, there will be incentives for facilities to cooperate with the agency voluntarily. For the public aspect, people can have access to the database to help make informed decisions and to oversee the industry performance.However, the primary questions should be of what information will enhance the understanding of the risk the public face, how much the information needs to be released, and to whom must be directly addressed.
Environmental regulation in U.S. has shifted substantially from traditional direct regulatory approach, such as the agency’s mandatory rules, to the use of varied and more flexible regulatory strategies. Proponent asserts that the information reported by industries can also enhance transparency and accountability of administration, because the data subjects the environmental performance of facilities to a scrutiny of their peers, competitors, consumers, communities, and agencies.
Moreover, about how to make sure the needed information has required quantity and quality and accuracy, advocates have emphasized that the regulation must facilitate and expand the scope and sophistication of performance monitoring and benchmarking, providing additional depth and dimension available to firms themselves and external parties.
Hence, by referring to the U.S. experience, the Taiwanese government should be cautious when establishing the new approach of using information as a tool to achieve triple wins of the agency, the industry, and the public.
Finally, along with the development of using information in many other countries, like in China, India, and Korea, increasing practical experience on informational regulation and perfecting its legal framework, through the comparative approach presented in this paper, will enhance the concept and achieve the environmental protection in the Asia Pacific.
2008年1月13日 星期日
美國環境法概述
美國環境法傳統上還是以政府的管制為主，美國稱之為 command-and-control 的規範方式。後來有所謂的經濟誘因 economic incentives，這部分是Prof. Stewart 所擅長並強調的。其中的轉變當然是對傳統規範方式的質疑，希望尋求以最有效率的方式達到環境保護。其中便牽涉到經濟分析的問題.
針對環境保護的規範，可從機關、業者、以及大眾三方來看。就機關而言，在確保環境保護下，如何的規範才是有效且不會耗費過多的有限資源。因為在執行上、監測上，行政機關往往必須投入相當大的人力、物力。從業者來看，怎樣的方式能促使其自動自發的落實對環境的維護，這涉及自利的問題。營利本就是業者存在的目的，只是傳統規範通常假定政府的規範環境保護的目的和業者的營業目的是根本上相衝突的。在大眾言，如何落實公眾對相關決策的參與，特別在以往專業行政的口號下，就連權力分立下的立法機關往往也無置喙的餘地，反而是業者有著遊說的可能。因此，大眾利益的維護，乃至於行政決定之民主正當性的確保，也是必須重視的。
在美國，我自己覺得，policy似乎是比較重要的，法律方面反而比較只是技術性的操作 (我的認知也許有誤)，而且這一部分是很有趣、很值得討論的。在論述上, 學者往往會納入其他領域的東西來做論證，像是經濟學，甚至是及心理學。(這兩個領域的觸角其實是很廣的) 環境法還會涉及科學上的問題。反而是大陸法系強調的法律上的原理原則，在美國不太有過多的討論。(當然，司法審查或是公眾參與的重要性，仍是相關論述上的重要環節。若是研究的像是憲法等科目，還是會著重在相關的原則，但在像是環境法上，例如: “環境基本權”就鮮少有人著墨。)
不過在美國研究法律，由於其common law的傳統，即便在行政規範的討論上，common law 的原則仍是必須加以注意的。 像是tort law 在環境法上仍是很重要的依據。
另外要說的是，美國學者很喜歡創造字彙。像是“new governance”, 強調的是那一個 “governance” 不再完全依賴政府，而是從業者內部做出發，有學者也稱之為 “reflective law”(也有稱做 "adaptive management strategies")。此外也有強調業者與政府的合作(collaborative new governance)。 "Environmental Management System” 以及 “Environmental Audit” 也是相關例子。甚至業者還可以跟政府就相關規範及其執行,進行價還價的協商 (Reg-negs).
而關於SEC所負責管轄的公司內部資訊的揭露，則是環境法上新興的另外一種規範措施，稱之為 “information regulation”。有稱之為第三代的環境法 (也是reflective law的一種)。Prof. Stewart 稱之為 “private sector problem-solving”，即要求業者自行監測並報告公佈相關資訊。 此一規範方式的提出，學者也是從經濟學上對於市場資訊不對稱的前提下，提供政府介入的一個依據。政府的工作在於設置一架構或是訊息溝通的管道，來提升業者自我的規範(self-regulation)。
以SEC為例，論者希望透過SEC對業者應將公司營運等內部資訊對外揭露之要求，就相關涉及環境的資訊也可以一併地對外公佈，如此可以提供投資者，乃至於消費者，來決定投資或購買其產品與否，以期促使業者能有更符合環保的作為。
就我所知，台灣這一部分好像是放在公司財報的部分，只是相關討論在台灣多是公共政策領域所為之，法律上好像尚未為人注意，而業者也不太重視之。
在美國，論者也有質疑其適當性，像是SEC 是否有能力去做到管理監督的工作(特別是在有關環境的部分)。再者，有些也涉及營業秘密的問題。(也有針對條文規定的爭議加以批評)關於資訊揭露的一般性問題像是--以什麼方式揭露? 如何真的能讓投資者或是消費者了解? 如何確保業者所揭露的資訊是正確的?... (第三人監督的機制也有其爭議)
只是，Prof. Stewart 似乎不太看好 information regulation 的規範方式，其仍是強調應透過市場誘因之機制，最有效率地達成完境的保護。(但是，也有學者認為information regulation也可算是市場機制的一種。再者，也有許多學者強烈批判此市場誘因，特別在環境正義上。學者也有提出實證數據反駁，認為在市場誘因下並不能符合成本效益的要求。)
此外，容我再雞婆一下，討論美國法律的發展，社會的趨勢也是影響很大的，尤其會反映在其最高法院的見解上。前述的發展，從30年代的新政(New Deal)以前，是強調自由經濟，新政以後，強調政府管制、專業行政，一直到80年代雷根政府的解除管制，形塑出其不同的發展。(現在，甚至要求聯邦政府各項作為都必須通過成本效益的分析—透過其總統的執行命令)
待續...
針對環境保護的規範，可從機關、業者、以及大眾三方來看。就機關而言，在確保環境保護下，如何的規範才是有效且不會耗費過多的有限資源。因為在執行上、監測上，行政機關往往必須投入相當大的人力、物力。從業者來看，怎樣的方式能促使其自動自發的落實對環境的維護，這涉及自利的問題。營利本就是業者存在的目的，只是傳統規範通常假定政府的規範環境保護的目的和業者的營業目的是根本上相衝突的。在大眾言，如何落實公眾對相關決策的參與，特別在以往專業行政的口號下，就連權力分立下的立法機關往往也無置喙的餘地，反而是業者有著遊說的可能。因此，大眾利益的維護，乃至於行政決定之民主正當性的確保，也是必須重視的。
在美國，我自己覺得，policy似乎是比較重要的，法律方面反而比較只是技術性的操作 (我的認知也許有誤)，而且這一部分是很有趣、很值得討論的。在論述上, 學者往往會納入其他領域的東西來做論證，像是經濟學，甚至是及心理學。(這兩個領域的觸角其實是很廣的) 環境法還會涉及科學上的問題。反而是大陸法系強調的法律上的原理原則，在美國不太有過多的討論。(當然，司法審查或是公眾參與的重要性，仍是相關論述上的重要環節。若是研究的像是憲法等科目，還是會著重在相關的原則，但在像是環境法上，例如: “環境基本權”就鮮少有人著墨。)
不過在美國研究法律，由於其common law的傳統，即便在行政規範的討論上，common law 的原則仍是必須加以注意的。 像是tort law 在環境法上仍是很重要的依據。
另外要說的是，美國學者很喜歡創造字彙。像是“new governance”, 強調的是那一個 “governance” 不再完全依賴政府，而是從業者內部做出發，有學者也稱之為 “reflective law”(也有稱做 "adaptive management strategies")。此外也有強調業者與政府的合作(collaborative new governance)。 "Environmental Management System” 以及 “Environmental Audit” 也是相關例子。甚至業者還可以跟政府就相關規範及其執行,進行價還價的協商 (Reg-negs).
而關於SEC所負責管轄的公司內部資訊的揭露，則是環境法上新興的另外一種規範措施，稱之為 “information regulation”。有稱之為第三代的環境法 (也是reflective law的一種)。Prof. Stewart 稱之為 “private sector problem-solving”，即要求業者自行監測並報告公佈相關資訊。 此一規範方式的提出，學者也是從經濟學上對於市場資訊不對稱的前提下，提供政府介入的一個依據。政府的工作在於設置一架構或是訊息溝通的管道，來提升業者自我的規範(self-regulation)。
以SEC為例，論者希望透過SEC對業者應將公司營運等內部資訊對外揭露之要求，就相關涉及環境的資訊也可以一併地對外公佈，如此可以提供投資者，乃至於消費者，來決定投資或購買其產品與否，以期促使業者能有更符合環保的作為。
就我所知，台灣這一部分好像是放在公司財報的部分，只是相關討論在台灣多是公共政策領域所為之，法律上好像尚未為人注意，而業者也不太重視之。
在美國，論者也有質疑其適當性，像是SEC 是否有能力去做到管理監督的工作(特別是在有關環境的部分)。再者，有些也涉及營業秘密的問題。(也有針對條文規定的爭議加以批評)關於資訊揭露的一般性問題像是--以什麼方式揭露? 如何真的能讓投資者或是消費者了解? 如何確保業者所揭露的資訊是正確的?... (第三人監督的機制也有其爭議)
只是，Prof. Stewart 似乎不太看好 information regulation 的規範方式，其仍是強調應透過市場誘因之機制，最有效率地達成完境的保護。(但是，也有學者認為information regulation也可算是市場機制的一種。再者，也有許多學者強烈批判此市場誘因，特別在環境正義上。學者也有提出實證數據反駁，認為在市場誘因下並不能符合成本效益的要求。)
此外，容我再雞婆一下，討論美國法律的發展，社會的趨勢也是影響很大的，尤其會反映在其最高法院的見解上。前述的發展，從30年代的新政(New Deal)以前，是強調自由經濟，新政以後，強調政府管制、專業行政，一直到80年代雷根政府的解除管制，形塑出其不同的發展。(現在，甚至要求聯邦政府各項作為都必須通過成本效益的分析—透過其總統的執行命令)
待續...
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
