國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

公害糾紛處理程序之法制分析 = A Legal Institutiona...

世新大學法律學系碩士班

公害糾紛處理程序之法制分析 = A Legal Institutional Analysis on Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Procedures

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	A Legal Institutional Analysis on Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Procedures
作者:	鄭永志,
其他團體作者:	世新大學
出版地:	[台北市]
出版者:	撰者;
出版年:	2013[民102]
面頁冊數:	167面圖，表格 : 30公分;
標題:	公害糾紛
標題:	Public Nuisance
附註:	參考書目：面141-150
摘要註:	我國公害糾紛處理法自1992年頒布施行至今已逾二十年，雖然數據呈現有解決紛爭的效果，但是歷史仍陸續發生公害糾紛引致抗爭的情形，直至2009年高雄潮寮抗爭事件的處理，在環境保護署傾權利搜證仍找不到確定的加害人的情形下，地方政府以可疑廠商為加害方啟動調處程序，經濟部以利益相關者加入調處，最候達成協議並簽定環境保護協定。這樣的處理方式比較過往的案例處理是常態還是特例？我國公害糾紛處理法所建構的機制何以不能充份達到解紛的效果，仍使抗爭場面時而發生？本文以實證分析的觀點對現行公害糾紛處理法的制度以及個案進行分析，釐清問題並提出改進的建議。公害糾紛處理法其解紛的制度基礎是替代性糾紛處理機制，故以該機制的闡述為始，先總括說名主要的特徵、分類及其解紛的優勢。續以介紹我國公害糾紛所有可以選擇的替代性糾紛處理程序，以充份瞭解制度的現況，並解析現行公害糾紛處理法制度，調處、裁決委員會的兩階段同質性高及固定專家委員比例不夠周延的問題。再從我國的調處與裁決個案分析歸納發現，處理的過程並未善用替代性糾紛處理機制的特徵，仍遵循傳統因果關係的方式決定紛爭的是非，加以法規制度的問題，導致糾紛的處理有未盡公平之處。為與目前研議中以美國的制度為主要參考的我國環境責任法相銜，因此針對美國環境替代性糾紛處理機制其發展歷程及多元的選擇程序加以說明，再對其制度有所概念之後，分析美國的調解個案處理過程，透視其如何善用替代性糾紛處理機制的特徵，使環境糾紛事件的處理結果，創造出汙染的加害者、受害者以及相關利益者都成為贏家的處理結果，實現社會公平與環境正義。從分析我國法規制度發現的問題及歸納實證個案所得到的結果，盱衡我國現有的法規制度並參考美國的經驗，仲裁程序的特色符合公害糾紛事件的特徵，並可以彌補現有的制度缺點，建議是未來公害糾紛處理法制度重構修法的方向。 The Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act(PNDMA)was enacted since 1992 in Taiwan.It rendrs to settle the public nuisance disputes of effect, but there still are gradually occurred pollution-disputes caused fight of cases.In 2008, there was serious air pollutions event outbreak in Chao-Liao Village of Kaohsiung County, both of Environmental Protection Administration of Executive Yuan and Environmental Protection Bureau of Kaohsiung County couldn't identify the sources of pollutions.The victims had to go on the street for protest and fight for their own rights.The event has pointed that something was wrong with the PNDMA, and this thesis uses empirical analysis to clarify the main problems and making suggestion for improvement. The PNDMA was based on Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR), so to make the description for it first, the main characteristics, classification and many advantages included.All the non-contentious programs for public nuisnace dispute in Taiwan were illustrated and analyzed, especiallly detailed for the procedures of mediation and arbitration of the PNDMA.(The "arbitration" is not the same as the one of the Arbitration Law of ROC)There are disadvantages of the act of the two stages of the committees being withe almost the same characters and the experts in Committees being not thorough enough from the analysis.From the summarize of cases of the mediation and arbitration(PNDMA) procedures in Taiwan, The processes didn't make best use of the characteristics of ADR, but still follow the traditional cause and effect relationship.Addition to the regulation problems, it do not lead the disputes resolution results to implement the social equity and environmental justice. To follow the sutdy of Environmantal Libility Law at Environmental Protection Administration in Taiwan as the main reference with United States institution, introducing the Environmental ADR mechanisms in United States were wll developed.After that, by discussing the empirical analysis on the mediation processes of United States, we can perspective the characteristic of how best to use ADR.Not just to settle the environmental diputes, but to create a solution to let the pollution of perpetrators, victims, as well as stakeholders are all winners. We propose the suggestion that the arbitration(the Arbitration Law of ROC)is the better choice if there will be the PNDMA modified, because of the two reasons of this study.First, the characteristic of arbitration proceedings are in accordance with them of the public nuisance dispute event.And the second is the arbitration program can compensate for the shortcoming which get from the analysis of the regulatory regime and summarize the results of empirical cases.

公害糾紛處理程序之法制分析 = A Legal Institutional Analysis on Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Procedures
鄭, 永志

公害糾紛處理程序之法制分析 = A Legal Institutional Analysis on Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Procedures / 鄭永志撰 - [台北市] : 撰者, 2013[民102]. - 167面 ; 圖，表格 ; 30公分.
參考書目：面141-150.
公害糾紛Public Nuisance

公害糾紛處理程序之法制分析 = A Legal Institutional Analysis on Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Procedures
LDR:05943nam0 2200241 450 001 413969
005 20140528091050.0
010 0 $b 平裝
100 $a 20140508d2013 k y0chiy05 e
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a ak am 000yy
200 1 $a 公害糾紛處理程序之法制分析 $d A Legal Institutional Analysis on Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Procedures $z eng $f 鄭永志撰
210 $a [台北市] $c 撰者 $d 2013[民102]
215 0 $a 167面 $c 圖，表格 $d 30公分
300 $a 參考書目：面141-150
314 $a 指導教授：張英磊博士
328 $a 碩士論文--世新大學法律學系碩士班
330 $a 我國公害糾紛處理法自1992年頒布施行至今已逾二十年，雖然數據呈現有解決紛爭的效果，但是歷史仍陸續發生公害糾紛引致抗爭的情形，直至2009年高雄潮寮抗爭事件的處理，在環境保護署傾權利搜證仍找不到確定的加害人的情形下，地方政府以可疑廠商為加害方啟動調處程序，經濟部以利益相關者加入調處，最候達成協議並簽定環境保護協定。這樣的處理方式比較過往的案例處理是常態還是特例？我國公害糾紛處理法所建構的機制何以不能充份達到解紛的效果，仍使抗爭場面時而發生？本文以實證分析的觀點對現行公害糾紛處理法的制度以及個案進行分析，釐清問題並提出改進的建議。公害糾紛處理法其解紛的制度基礎是替代性糾紛處理機制，故以該機制的闡述為始，先總括說名主要的特徵、分類及其解紛的優勢。續以介紹我國公害糾紛所有可以選擇的替代性糾紛處理程序，以充份瞭解制度的現況，並解析現行公害糾紛處理法制度，調處、裁決委員會的兩階段同質性高及固定專家委員比例不夠周延的問題。再從我國的調處與裁決個案分析歸納發現，處理的過程並未善用替代性糾紛處理機制的特徵，仍遵循傳統因果關係的方式決定紛爭的是非，加以法規制度的問題，導致糾紛的處理有未盡公平之處。為與目前研議中以美國的制度為主要參考的我國環境責任法相銜，因此針對美國環境替代性糾紛處理機制其發展歷程及多元的選擇程序加以說明，再對其制度有所概念之後，分析美國的調解個案處理過程，透視其如何善用替代性糾紛處理機制的特徵，使環境糾紛事件的處理結果，創造出汙染的加害者、受害者以及相關利益者都成為贏家的處理結果，實現社會公平與環境正義。從分析我國法規制度發現的問題及歸納實證個案所得到的結果，盱衡我國現有的法規制度並參考美國的經驗，仲裁程序的特色符合公害糾紛事件的特徵，並可以彌補現有的制度缺點，建議是未來公害糾紛處理法制度重構修法的方向。 The Public Nuisance Dispute Mediation Act(PNDMA)was enacted since 1992 in Taiwan.It rendrs to settle the public nuisance disputes of effect, but there still are gradually occurred pollution-disputes caused fight of cases.In 2008, there was serious air pollutions event outbreak in Chao-Liao Village of Kaohsiung County, both of Environmental Protection Administration of Executive Yuan and Environmental Protection Bureau of Kaohsiung County couldn't identify the sources of pollutions.The victims had to go on the street for protest and fight for their own rights.The event has pointed that something was wrong with the PNDMA, and this thesis uses empirical analysis to clarify the main problems and making suggestion for improvement. The PNDMA was based on Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR), so to make the description for it first, the main characteristics, classification and many advantages included.All the non-contentious programs for public nuisnace dispute in Taiwan were illustrated and analyzed, especiallly detailed for the procedures of mediation and arbitration of the PNDMA.(The "arbitration" is not the same as the one of the Arbitration Law of ROC)There are disadvantages of the act of the two stages of the committees being withe almost the same characters and the experts in Committees being not thorough enough from the analysis.From the summarize of cases of the mediation and arbitration(PNDMA) procedures in Taiwan, The processes didn't make best use of the characteristics of ADR, but still follow the traditional cause and effect relationship.Addition to the regulation problems, it do not lead the disputes resolution results to implement the social equity and environmental justice. To follow the sutdy of Environmantal Libility Law at Environmental Protection Administration in Taiwan as the main reference with United States institution, introducing the Environmental ADR mechanisms in United States were wll developed.After that, by discussing the empirical analysis on the mediation processes of United States, we can perspective the characteristic of how best to use ADR.Not just to settle the environmental diputes, but to create a solution to let the pollution of perpetrators, victims, as well as stakeholders are all winners. We propose the suggestion that the arbitration(the Arbitration Law of ROC)is the better choice if there will be the PNDMA modified, because of the two reasons of this study.First, the characteristic of arbitration proceedings are in accordance with them of the public nuisance dispute event.And the second is the arbitration program can compensate for the shortcoming which get from the analysis of the regulatory regime and summarize the results of empirical cases.
510 1 $a A Legal Institutional Analysis on Public Nuisance Dispute Resolution Procedures $z eng
610 # 0 $a 公害糾紛 $a 實證分析 $a 仲裁
610 # 1 $a Public Nuisance $a empirical analysis $a arbitration
681 $a 008M/1015 $b 380101 8734 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 鄭 $b 永志 $4 撰 $3 655791
712 0 2 $a 世新大學 $b 法律學系碩士班 $3 656858
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20140508 $g CCR