跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 18:10
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:李彥麟
研究生(外文):In-Lon Lei
論文名稱:誰為環境發聲?環境財損害賠償的模式選擇
論文名稱(外文):Who Will Be Nature’s Attorney? Approaches Toward Full Recovery of Environmental Damage
指導教授:葉俊榮葉俊榮引用關係
指導教授(外文):Jiunn-rong Yeh
口試委員:施文真汪信君吳英傑
口試委員(外文):Wen-Chen ShihHsin-Chun WangYing Chieh Wu
口試日期:2015-07-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:法律學研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:一般法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:168
中文關鍵詞:環境責任環境財環境權生態服務當事人適格代際正義
外文關鍵詞:environmental liabilityenvironmental goodsright to environmentecosystem servicesstandingintergenerational equity
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:997
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:91
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
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。

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.

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

1. 漢文部分

1.1. 專書譯著
王志誠(2009)。《信託法》,四版。臺北:五南。
王俊秀(2012)。《人民財團與信託社會》。新北:巨流。
王澤鑑(2008)。《民法總則》,修訂版。臺北:自刊。
王澤鑑(2009)。《侵權行為法》。臺北:自刊。
王澤鑑(2010)。《民法物權》,二版。臺北:自刊。
王澤鑑(2012)。《人格權法:法釋義學、比較法、案例研究》。臺北:自刊。
伍鴻宇(編)(2011)。《儒家思想與生態文明:第五屆儒學國際學術研討會論文集》。臺北:臺灣學生書局。
林鈺雄(2007)。《刑事訴訟法(下冊:各論編)》,五版。臺北:自刊。
法務部(編)(2012)。《公民與政治權利國際公約、經濟社會文化權利國際公約一般性意見》。臺北:法務部。
邱聰智(1984)。《公害法原理》。臺北:自刊。
張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏(2010)。《經濟學:理論與實際(上冊)》,六版。臺北:自刊。
陳慈陽(2000)。《環境法總論》。北縣:自刊。
黃茂榮(2006)。《法學方法與現代民法》,五版。臺北:自刊。
葉俊榮(2015)。《氣候變遷治理與法律》。臺北:臺大出版中心。
謝在全(2009)。《民法物權論(上)》,四版。臺北:自刊。
J. Donald Hughes(著),郭彥彤、吳緯疆(譯)(2013)。《地球與人:生命群落的動態演繹》。新北:廣場。
Jared Diamond(著),廖月娟(譯)(2006)。《大崩壞:人類社會的明天?》。臺北:時報文化。
Karl Larenz(著),陳愛娥(譯)(1996)。《法學方法論》。臺北:五南。
Maude Barlow、Tony Clarke(著),張岳、盧瑩、謝伯讓(譯)(2011)。《水資源戰爭:揭露跨國企業壟斷世界水資源的真實內幕》。臺北:高寶。
Thomas L. Friedman(著),丘羽先、李欣容、許貴運、童一寧、黃孝如、楊舒琄、蔡菁芳、顧淑馨(譯)(2009)。《世界又熱、又平、又擠:全球暖化、能源耗竭、人口爆炸危機下的新經濟革命》。臺北:天下遠見。
Richard A. Posner(著),蔣兆康(譯)(2010)。《法律經濟學》。臺北:五南。
Michael J. Sandel(著),吳四明、姬健梅(譯)(2012)。《錢買不到的東西:金錢與正義的攻防》。臺北:先覺。

1.2. 書之篇章
邱聯恭(1996)。〈民事訴訟之目的:以消費者保護訴訟為例〉,氏著,《程序制度機能論》,頁147–196。臺北:自刊。
邱聯恭(1996)。〈程序保障之機能:基於民事事件類型審理必要論及程序法理交錯適用肯定論之觀點〉,氏著,《程序制度機能論》,頁61–145。臺北:自刊。
許士宦(2003)。〈重複起訴禁止原則與既判力客觀範圍〉,氏著,《程序保障與闡明義務》,頁225–296。臺北:新學林。
陳聰富(2008)。〈環境污染責任之違法性判斷〉,氏著,《侵權違法性與損害賠償》,頁73–119。臺北:元照。
黃國昌(2005)。〈訴訟參與及代表訴訟〉,氏著,《民事訴訟理論之新開展》,頁287–320。臺北:元照。
葉俊榮(1997)。〈邁向「自制」之路:美國最高法院對環保團體當事人適格的緊縮〉,氏著,《環境理性與制度抉擇》,頁409–424。臺北:自刊。
葉俊榮(2010)。〈「出賣環境權」:從五輕設廠的十五億「回饋基金」談起〉,氏著,《環境政策與法律》,二版,頁35–71。臺北:元照。
葉俊榮(2010)。〈民眾參與環保法令之執行:論我國引進美國環境法上「公民訴訟」之可行性〉,氏著,《環境政策與法律》,二版,頁233–271。臺北:元照。
葉俊榮(2010)。〈憲法位階的環境權:從擁有環境到參與環境決策〉,氏著,《環境政策與法律》,二版,頁1–33。臺北:元照。
葉俊榮(2010)。〈環境問題的制度因應:刑罰與其他因應措施的比較與選擇〉,氏著,《環境政策與法律》,二版,頁135–172。臺北:元照。
駱永家(1989)。〈公害之民事救濟與糾紛解決方法〉,氏著,《民事法研究III》,頁367–382。臺北:自刊。
駱永家(1989)。〈環境權之理念與應用〉,氏著,《民事法研究III》,頁361–366。臺北:自刊。
簡資修(2004)。〈寇斯的《廠商、市場與法律》:一個法律人的觀點〉,氏著,《經濟推理與法律》,頁15–33,臺北:元照。

1.3. 期刊文章
王文宇(1996)。〈財產法的經濟分析與寇斯定理:從一則古老的土地相鄰判決談起〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,15期,頁6–15。
王俊秀(2004)。〈永續台灣向前行〉,《新世紀智庫論壇》,26期。載於:http://www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ttforum/26/26-05.pdf
王毓正(2010)。〈我國環評史上首例撤銷判決:環評審查結論經撤銷無效抑或無效用之判決——最高行九九判三〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,149期,頁145–158。
朱柏松(2011)。〈民法物權編農育權規範評議〉,《世新法學》,5卷1期,頁1–33。
吳英傑(2015)。〈論受託人違反信託本旨而為信託財產之處分:救濟方法暨其法理基礎〉,《臺大法學論叢》,44卷2期,頁407–456。
李建良(2000)。〈論環境保護與人權保障之關係〉,《東吳法律學報》,12卷2期,頁1–46。
李建良(2007)。〈釋義《土壤及地下水污染整治法》之污染行為人:闡析台鹼安順廠污染事件之整治責任及行政法院相關判決〉,湯德宗、李建良(編),《2006行政管制與行政爭訟》,頁101–158。臺北:中央研究院法律學研究所。
沈冠伶(2003)。〈多數紛爭當事人之權利救濟程序:從選定當事人制度到團體訴訟〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,51期,頁169–184。
李建良(2010)。〈中科環評的法律課題:台灣法治國的淪喪與危機〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,149期,頁17–28。
張文貞、呂尚雲(2011)。〈兩公約與環境人權的主張〉,《台灣人權學刊》,1卷1期,頁57–83。
許志雄(1995)。〈人權規定之第三人效力〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,試刊號,頁59–60。
陳忠五(2007)。〈論契約責任與侵權責任的保護客體:「權利」與「利益」區別正當性的再反省〉,《臺大法學論叢》,36卷3期,頁51–254。
陳忠五(2011)。〈抽沙污染海域影響附近蚵苗成長:權利侵害或純粹經濟上損失?——最高法院100年度臺上字第250號判決評釋〉,《臺灣法學雜誌》,187期,頁31–36。
陳新民(1985)。〈憲法基本權利及「對第三者效力」之理論〉,《政大法學評論》,31期,頁67–112。
黃銘傑(2008)。〈公司名稱之人格權保護與商標法、公平交易法間之糾葛:評臺灣高等法院九十六年上更(一)字第一二六號「東森不動產仲介經紀有限公司」vs.「東森建業不動產仲介經紀股份有限公司」判決〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,160期,頁191–213。
葉俊榮(1990)。〈論環境政策上的經濟誘因:理論依據〉,《臺大法學論叢》,20卷1期,頁87–111。
葉俊榮(2010)。〈捍衛環評制度尊嚴的行政法院中科裁判〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,185期,頁68–79。
葉俊榮(2015)。〈「水土不服」的土壤及地下水污染整治法:中石化安順廠相關行政訴訟的檢討〉,《法令月刊》,66卷3期,頁23–53。
詹順貴(2013)。〈促參案件環評程序的迴避問題探討:從美麗灣案談起〉,《台灣環境與土地法學雜誌》,5期,頁83–98。
廖新一(2008)。〈終身環保志工:吳麗慧老師〉,《環盟會訊》,147期。載於:http://www.tepu.org.tw/wp-content/uploads/magazine/147.pdf
鄭冠宇(2010)。〈民法物權新修正(一)/農育權之制定與適用〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,179期,頁54–65。
環境法律人協會(2013)。〈環境主流化:環境基本法十週年論壇〉,《環境法律人協會電子期刊》,2期。載於:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/36099640/EJA 網站/第二期期刊/EJAv.2(3-1).pdf

1.4. 學位論文
王智弘(2007)。《生態中心論及道家之環境教育思想研究》,國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
史慧玲(1996)。《道家的環境哲學》,國立中央大學哲學研究所碩士論文(未出版),桃園。
朱柏松(1974)。《公害之民事責任論》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
吳雪蘋(2008)。《環境損害賠償責任及其解決對策之研究》,國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
呂尚雲(2011)。《國際人權機制對環境議題之回應與啟示》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
李峙曄(2013)。《我國環境公益信託制度及其運作障礙之探討》,國立成功大學法律學系碩士論文(未出版),臺南。
周佐辰(2011)。《台北市生態系統水源涵養服務功能之研究》,國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
張偉祐(2000)。《保育森林生態系之經濟價值評估:以八仙山森林生態系經營試驗區為例》,國立中興大學農業經濟學系碩士論文(未出版),臺中。
陳宥豪(2012)。《濕地生態系統服務功能及保育價值探討:以台江國家公園為例》,國立東華大學自然資源與環境學系碩士論文(未出版),花蓮。
陳貞如(2012)。《海岸濕地生態系統服務價值評估:以七股海岸濕地為例》,國立成功大學海洋科技與事務研究所碩士論文(未出版),臺南。
馮春碧(2004)。《由阿瑪斯號貨輪油污染事件論船舶燃油污染損害賠償制度》,頁。國立臺灣海洋大學應用經濟研究所碩士論文(未出版),基隆。
黃安琪(2012)。《2000年玻利維亞科恰班巴水資源戰爭之研究(1985-2011)》,淡江大學美洲研究所碩士論文(未出版),新北。
黃叔鈴(2007)。《論基本權之第三人效力與保護義務:以關愛之家判決為例》,東吳大學法律學系碩士論文(未出版),臺北。
黃淑媚(2012)。《以能值理論分析濕地生態經濟系統之研究:以臺灣七股海岸濕地為例》,國立成功大學地球科學系碩博士班碩士論文(未出版),臺南。
董郢(2012)。《公益信託之研究:兼論英美之保護地役權》,天主教輔仁大學法律學系碩士論文(未出版),新北。
趙鏡中(1991)。《儒家「環境倫理」思想研究》,天主教輔仁大學哲學研究所博士論文(未出版),北縣。

1.5. 研討會論文
葉俊榮(2012年12月)。〈環境基本法的脈絡與功能:歷史回顧與展望〉,發表於:《環境基本法十週年論壇》。環境法律人協會、臺灣大學環境永續政策與法律中心(主辦),臺北。

1.6. 司法裁判
屏東地方法院92年度重訴字第4號民事裁定。
屏東地方法院99年度公字第1號民事判決。
桃園地方法院90年度訴字第1939號民事判決。
高等法院102年度上易字第1110號民事判決。
高等法院102年度上易字第1194號民事判決。
高等法院98年度上易字第293號民事判決。
高等法院高雄分院93年度上易字第80號民事判決。
高等法院高雄分院93年度抗字第487號民事裁定。
高等法院高雄分院102年度重上字第79號民事裁定。
高等法院臺中分院102年度上字第43號民事判決。
高等法院臺南分院101年度上易字第176號民事判決。
高等法院臺南分院94年度上易字第130號民事判決。
高等法院臺南分院94年度上易字第15號民事判決。
高等法院臺南分院95年度上字第162號民事判決。
高等法院臺南分院95年度上易字第116號民事判決。
高等法院臺南分院95年度上易字第117號民事判決。
高等法院臺南分院99年度上更(一)字第6號民事判決。
高雄地方法院103年度矚訴字第1號刑事判決。
高雄地方法院93年度訴字第2840號民事裁定。
高雄地方法院94年度訴字第1907號民事判決。
最高行政法院99年度判字第30號判決。
最高行政法院101年度判字第55號判決。
最高法院51年臺上字第3495號判例。
最高法院55年臺上字第1949號判例。
最高法院62年臺上字第1803號判例。
最高法院62年臺上字第2806號判例。
最高法院76年度臺上字第1949號民事判決。
最高法院83年臺上字第2197號判例。
最高法院83年臺上字第2197號判例。
最高法院90年臺上字第2304號民事判決。
最高法院92年臺上字第164號判例。
最高法院95年度臺抗字第2號民事裁定。
最高法院99年度臺上字第1808號民事判決。
最高法院99年度臺上字第223號民事判決。

1.7. 政府資料
行政院硏究發展考核委員會(編)(1995)。《公害糾紛處理政策與法制之研究》,臺北:行政院硏考會。
行政院環境保護署(1992)。《公害糾紛處理白書》,臺北:行政院環境保護署。
行政院環境保護署(2009)。《「希臘籍阿瑪斯號貨輪油污墾丁海域事件」行政院環境保護署處理情形結案報告》。載於:http://www.epa.gov.tw/cpDownloadCtl.asp?id=25449
葉俊榮、汪信君、張文貞(2009)。《公害糾紛處理與環境損害責任之運作機制探討及法制研修推廣(第二年)專案研究計畫》(行政院環境保護署委託臺大法學基金會,計畫編號:EPA-98-K105-02-209)。臺北:行政院環境保護署。
葉俊榮、張文貞(2010)。《環境影響評估制度問題之探討》。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告,編號RDEC-RES-098-007。
葉俊榮、黃錦堂(1990)。《公害糾紛處理之檢討與建議》。臺北:行政院環境保護署。
彰化市東側外環道路新闢工程路線規劃環境影響說明書(0860011H)。
鄭玉波(1988)。《公害糾紛處理及民事救濟法制之研究》。臺北:行政院經濟建設委員會健全經社法規工作小組。

1.8. 電影
Mark Achbar(導演)(2009)。《企業人格診斷書》。臺北:同喜文化。

2. English Materials

2.1. Books, Reports, and Other Nonperiodic Materials
Anderson, T. L., & Leal, D. R. (1991). Free market environmentalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Annan, K. A. (2000). We the peoples: The role of the United Nations in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/events/pastevents/pdfs/We_The_Peoples.pdf
Applegate, J., & Laitos, J. (2006). Environmental law: RCRA, CERCLA, and the management of hazardous waste. New York, NY: Foundation Press.
Barnes, R. (2009). Property rights and natural resources. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Boyd, D. R. (2012). The environmental rights revolution: A global study of constitutions, human rights, and the environment. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press.
Calabresi, G. (1970). The costs of accidents: A legal and economic analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Carson, R. (2002). Silent Spring. New York, NY: Mariner Books. (Original work published 1962)
Cole, D. H. (2002). Pollution and property: Comparing ownership institutions for environmental protection. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dales, J. H. (2002). Pollution, property & prices: An essay in policy-making and economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. (Original work published 1968)
Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1985). Deep ecology: Living as if nature mattered. Salt Lake City, UT: G.M. Smith.
Hanley, N., & Barbier, E. B. (2009). Pricing nature: Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Hunter, D., Salzman, J., & Zaelke, D. (2007). International environmental law and policy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Press.
Hussen, A. M. (2004). Principles of environmental economics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kill, J. (2014). Economic valuation of nature: The price to pay for conservation?. Retrieved from http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/Economic-Valuation-of-Nature.pdf
Laitos, J. G. (2012). The right of nonuse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Leopold, A. (1970). A sand county almanac: With other essays on conservation from round river. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. (Original work published 1949)
Merchant, C. (2005). Radical ecology: The search for a livable world (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Retrieved from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
Nash, R. F. (1989). The rights of nature: A history of environmental ethics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pigou, A. C. (1932). The Economics of Welfare (4th ed.). London, UK: Macmillan and Co.
Shearman, D., & Smith, J. W. (2007). The climate change challenge and the failure of democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Stone, C. D. (2010). Should trees have standing? Law, morality, and the environment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Voigt, C. (Ed.). (2013). Rule of law for nature: New dimensions and ideas in environmental law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, E. B. (1989). In fairness to future generations: International law, common patrimony, and intergenerational equity. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University.
Wood, M. C. (2014). Nature’s trust: Environmental law for a new ecological age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Worster, D. (1994). Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

2.2. Shorter Works in Collection
Cullinan, C. (2013). The rule of nature’s law. In C. Voigt (Ed.), Rule of law for nature: New dimensions and ideas in environmental law (pp. 94–108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Faure, M. (2009). Environmental liability. In M. Faure (Ed.), Tort law and economics (pp. 247–286). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Kravchenko, S., Chowdhury, T. M.R., & Bhuiyan, M. J. H. (2013). Principles of international environmental law. In S. Alam, M. J. H. Bhuiyan, T. M.R. Chowdhury, & E. J. Techera (Eds.), Routledge handbook of international environmental law (pp. 43–60). New York, NY: Routledge.
Perry, S. R. (2010). Tort law. In D. Patterson (Ed.), A companion to philosophy of law and legal theory (2nd ed.) (pp. 64–89). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

2.3. Journal Articles and Other Periodical Materials
Bailey, S., & Mattei, U. (2013). Social movements as constituent power: The Italian struggle for the commons. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 20, 965–1013.
Binger, B. R., Copple, R. F., & Hoffman, E. (1995). The use of contingent valuation methodology in natural resource damage assessments: Legal fact and economic fiction. Northwestern University Law Review, 89, 1029–1116.
Bruhl, A.-A. P. (2002). Justice unconceived: How posterity has rights. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 14, 393–439.
Brunet, E. (1992). Debunking wholesale private enforcement of environmental rights. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 15, 311–324.
Bulger, F. A. (1993). The evolution of the “grossly disproportionate” standard in natural resource damage assessments. Baylor Law Review, 45, 459–471.
Calabresi, G., & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089–1128.
Caney, S. (2010). Markets, morality and climate change: What, if anything, is wrong with emissions trading?. New Political Economy, 15, 197–224.
Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.
Craig, R. K. (2010). Adapting to climate change: The potential role of state common-law public trust doctrines. Vermont Law Review, 34, 781–853.
Cross, F. B. (1989). Natural resource damage valuation. Vanderbilt Law Review, 42, 269–341.
Czarnezki, J. J., & Zahner, A. K. (2005). The utility of non-use values in natural resource damage assessments. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 32, 509–526.
D’Amato, A. (1990). Do we owe a duty to future generations to preserve the global environment?. American Journal of International Law, 84, 190–198.
Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review, 57, 347–359.
Eichenberg, T., Bothwell, S., & Vaughn, D. (2010). Climate change and the public trust doctrine: Using an ancient doctrine to adapt to rising sea levels in San Francisco Bay. Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 3, 243–281.
Elliot, E. D., Ackerman, B. A., & Millian, J. C. (1985). Toward a theory of statutory evolution: The federalization of environmental law. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 1, 313–340.
Ellis, J. M. (2014). The sky’s the limit: Applying the public trust doctrine to the atmosphere. Temple Law Review, 86, 807–847.
Eurick, J. P. (2001). The constitutional right to a healthy environment: Enforcing environmental protection through state and federal constitutions. International Legal Perspectives, 11, 185–222.
Favre, D. S. (1979). Wildlife rights: The ever-widening circle. Environmental Law, 9, 241–282.
Fung, M. (2006). The right to a healthy environment: Core obligations under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution, 14, 97–131.
Goodstein, E. (1995). The economic roots of environmental decline: Property rights or path dependence?. Journal of Economic Issues, 29, 1029–1043.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Huffman, J. L. (1992). Do species and nature have rights?. Public Land and Resources Law Review, 13, 51–76.
Hylton, K. N. (2002). When should we prefer tort law to environmental regulation?. Washburn Law Journal, 41, 515–534.
Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H., & Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: Intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 187–191.
Kapoor, T. (2015). Is successful water privatization a pipe dream?: An analysis of three global case studies. Yale Journal of International Law, 40, 157–192.
Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261–272.
Krier, J. E. (1992). The tragedy of the commons, part two. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 15, 325–347.
Lee, J. (2000). The underlying legal theory to support a well-defined human right to a healthy environment as a principle of customary international law. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 25, 283–340.
Link, A. D. (2010). The perils of privatization: International developments and reform in water distribution. Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal, 22, 379–399.
Lovelock, J. E. (1972). Gaia as seen through the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, 6, 579–580.
Menell, P. S. (1992). Institutional fantasylands: From scientific management to free market environmentalism. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 15, 489–510.
Meyer, J. (2010). Using the public trust doctrine to ensure the national forests protect the public from climate change. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law, Policy, 16, 195–219.
Morgan-Foster, J. (2005). Third generation rights: What Islamic law can teach the international human rights movement. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 8, 67–116.
Mudd, M. B. (2011). A “constant and difficult task”: Making local land use decisions in states with a constitutional right to a healthful environment. Ecology Law Quarterly, 38, 1–62.
Munro, G. S. (2012). The public trust doctrine and the Montana Constitution as legal bases for climate change litigation in Montana. Montana Law Review, 73, 123–160.
Nass, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 16, 95–100.
Nass, A. (1986). The deep ecological movement: Some philosophical aspects. Philosophical Inquiry, 8, 10–31.
Note. (1970). The public trust in tidal areas: a sometime submerged traditional doctrine. Yale Law Journal, 79, 762–789.
O’Dea, E. (2014). Reviving California’s public trust doctrine and taking a proactive approach to water management, just in time for climate change. Ecology Law Quarterly, 41, 435–460.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278–282.
Robertson, J. (1995). “For our own good”: Federal preemption of state tort law – risk, regulation, and the goals of environmental protection. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 20, 143–169.
Robinson, J. (1996). The role of nonuse values in natural resource damages: past, present, and future. Texas Law Review, 75, 189–214.
Rodriguez-Rivera, L. E. (2001). Is the human right to environment recognized under international law? It depends on the source. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 12, 1–45.
Sato, S. (2003). Sustainable development and the selfish gene: A rational paradigm for achieving intergenerational equity. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 11, 503–530.
Sax, J. L. (1970). The public trust doctrine in natural resource law: Effective judicial intervention. Michigan Law Review, 68, 471–566.
Sax, J. L. (1980). Liberating the public trust doctrine from its historical shackles. U.C. Davis Law Review, 14, 185–194.
Shelton, D. (1991). Human rights, environmental rights, and the right to environment. Stanford Journal of International Law, 28, 103–138.
Solove, D. J. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154, 477–564.
Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing? – Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450–501.
Stretesky, P., & Hogan, M. J. (1998). Environmental justice: An analysis of Superfund sites in Florida. Social Problems, 45, 268–287.
Thompson, B. H. Jr. (2006). The public trust doctrine: A conservative reconstruction & defense. Southeastern Environmental Law Journal, 15, 47–70.
Thompson, D. B. (2002). Valuing the environment: Courts’ struggles with natural resource damages. Environmental Law, 32, 57–89.
Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.
Tribe, L. H. (1974). Ways not to think about plastic trees: New foundations for environmental law. Yale Law Journal, 83, 1315–1348.
Vasak, K. (1977, November). A 30-year struggle: The sustained efforts to give force of law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UNESCO Courier, November 1977, 29–32. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074816eo.pdf#48063
Wager, K. W. K. (2014). In common law we trust: How Hawaii’s public trust doctrine can support atmospheric trust litigation to address climate change. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law, Policy, 20, 55–106.
Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193–220.
Weiss, E. B. (1990). Our rights and obligations to future generations for the environment. American Journal of International Law, 84, 198–207.
Wood, J. C. (1996). Intergenerational equity and climate change. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 8, 293–332.
Wyman, J. B. (2010). In States we trust: The importance of the preservation of the public trust doctrine in the wake of climate change. Vermont Law Review, 35, 507–514.
Yandle, T., & Burton, D. (1996). Reexamining environmental justice: A statistical analysis of historical hazardous waste landfill siting patterns in metropolitan Texas. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 477–492.

2.4. Cases
American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 131 S.Ct. 2527 (2011).
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., Inc., 26 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1970).
Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Esplanade Properties, LLC v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2002).
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968).
Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892).
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
McQueen v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 354 S.C. 142 (S.C. 2003).
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. 3d 419 (1983).
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 663 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012).
Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 471 F. Supp. 985 (D. Haw. 1979).
Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981).
People of the State of California v. General Motors Corp., No. C06–05755 MJJ, 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2007).
R.W. Docks & Slips v. State, 628 N.W.2d 781 (Wis. 2001).
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178 (Ariz. 1972).
Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170 (1931).
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 583 N.E.2d 894 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992).

2.5. United Nations Sources
Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, United Nations, Principles on General Rights and Obligations (Chairman’s consolidated draft), U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/PC/WG.III/L.8/Rev.1/Add.2 (Feb. 21, 1992).
U.N. Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 15, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (Jan. 20, 2003).
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Braz., June 3–14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), Annex I (Aug. 12, 1992).

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 王文宇(1996)。〈財產法的經濟分析與寇斯定理:從一則古老的土地相鄰判決談起〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,15期,頁6–15。
2. 朱柏松(2011)。〈民法物權編農育權規範評議〉,《世新法學》,5卷1期,頁1–33。
3. 李建良(2000)。〈論環境保護與人權保障之關係〉,《東吳法律學報》,12卷2期,頁1–46。
4. 許志雄(1995)。〈人權規定之第三人效力〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,試刊號,頁59–60。
5. 陳忠五(2011)。〈抽沙污染海域影響附近蚵苗成長:權利侵害或純粹經濟上損失?——最高法院100年度臺上字第250號判決評釋〉,《臺灣法學雜誌》,187期,頁31–36。
6. 陳新民(1985)。〈憲法基本權利及「對第三者效力」之理論〉,《政大法學評論》,31期,頁67–112。
7. 黃銘傑(2008)。〈公司名稱之人格權保護與商標法、公平交易法間之糾葛:評臺灣高等法院九十六年上更(一)字第一二六號「東森不動產仲介經紀有限公司」vs.「東森建業不動產仲介經紀股份有限公司」判決〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,160期,頁191–213。
8. 葉俊榮(2010)。〈捍衛環評制度尊嚴的行政法院中科裁判〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,185期,頁68–79。
9. 葉俊榮(2015)。〈「水土不服」的土壤及地下水污染整治法:中石化安順廠相關行政訴訟的檢討〉,《法令月刊》,66卷3期,頁23–53。
10. 鄭冠宇(2010)。〈民法物權新修正(一)/農育權之制定與適用〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,179期,頁54–65。
 
無相關點閱論文