政府間氣候變遷小組（IPCC）的制度功能演變及其對國際法與全球治理的啟示

The Institutional and Functional Process of IPCC and Its Implications to International Law and Global Governance

本文選定「聯合國政府間氣候變遷專家小組（Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC）」作為研究焦點，觀察該組織自1988 年設立以來的制度發展與功能定位變遷。本文發現，IPCC 的催生，與大氣科學社群和聯合國世界氣象組織的議程推動息息相關，並依其制度、成員、功能發展歸納為三個階段，包括1992 年以前的少數成員科學俱樂部、1992 年至2007 年之前的全球政治性參與組織，以及在2007 年之後回歸科學諮詢專門機構等三階段。 本文認為， IPCC 雖屬政府間組織（Intergovernmental Organization），但該組織的工作執行與推動者卻是由獨立科學社群所組成的專家小組（working groups），賦予了IPCC 跨國、專業與獨立等特性，而該特性恰恰貼合現今全球治理體系中，以專門機構（Agency）為對象的研究趨勢，是以適於作為理解國際規範體系與全球治理形貌的案例；其次，研究IPCC 對應的氣候變遷治理議程牽涉高度科學風險與不確定性，其制度發展歷程與功能定位變遷，當有助於我們評估並思索當代其他類似議題的治理模型。 本文發現，IPCC 揭露了當代國際環境的三項特性：納入「軟法」甚至「非法律專業文件」的國際規範體系；以及由公民社會、專業社群與政府共同型塑的公私協力治理格局，以及打破公私、國際與內國二分的國際治理環境。本文亦主張，IPCC 建構歷程所揭露的試驗性和漸進途徑，正好可以因應當代全球對不確定風險的治理需求，IPCC 建立後的一系列制度調整，例如強化對IPCC 資訊揭露與流程管控等制度，得以實踐跨國民主社群的民主責問性和法治要求，是對民主法制跨國治理結構的正面回應。

This paper provides a general picture of IPCC’s institution about its members, organs, task, working principles, and processes. It also discussed the birth of IPCC and IPCC’s institutional evolvement since 1988. By analyzing IPCC’s institutional transformation, this paper argued that IPCC has developed through a series of experiments and adjustments incrementally. The experimental and incremental approach IPCC takes may serve as a new model of the regime making for a better balance of different values, such as democratic accountability and rule of law for the democracies. It also argued that the story of evolving IPCC brought some implications to the international law and governance system. First, the experience of IPCC shows a highly diversified law-making process and structure in terms of more frequent participation, agenda-setting, or promotions of stakeholders transnationally. Second, IPCC's hybrid institution reflects a regime transcending the dichotomy of public/private, or international/domestic law. Third, as states' deference to international agencies with expertise like IPCC emerged, the institutional design of the independent agency shall take accountability, democracy, transparency, or rule of law into account.