行政法上調解機制之法制研究──以環境調解為例

Research on Mediation of Environmental Disputes in Administrative Law

訴訟外紛爭解決(Alternative Dispute Resolution; ADR)機制不僅為近年司法改革的重要方向之一，而由筆者長期關注的數宗重大環境爭議，在歷經漫長訴訟程序卻仍未獲解決，亦顯示行政訴訟未必是解決環境爭議之最佳解方。由於環境爭議往往涉及多邊法律關係，並應由行政機關調查、彙整、評價各方可能受影響之利益，並進行利益衡量，因此向來皆為屬於適宜進行調解之典型案例類型。為對於行政法上環境調制度之法制及實務運用有更深入之認識，本文首先對於ADR制度之內涵、特性以及常用之機制（如調解）進行介紹，並以調解為核心，介紹運用調解制度較為嫻熟的美國與德國之法制及實務經驗，以了解於行政程序及行政訴訟中運用調解以解決環境爭議之情形。此外，本文更進一步對於德國行政法領域中調解之法制及實務，進行更深入之觀察，並進行法理之分析探究。目前我國現行法制中，不論是行政程序法或行政訴訟法，皆未對於調解之進行有明文規範，惟於行政程序部分，為解決環境紛爭，基於本文之分析，可知我國現行環境影響評估法、都市計畫法及國土計畫法之程序規定中，均有環境紛爭先行或同時進行促進式調解之可能性。至於行政訴訟部分，2018 年司法院雖已研擬行政訴訟法之修正草案並增訂調解制度，惟修正草案相關規定未能完全契合調解之本質與內涵，恐將使調解無法達到全面解決紛爭之功能。本文亦對於草案內容進行觀察，提出未來應修正檢討之方向。

Since environmental disputes often involve multiple legal relationships and should be investigated, compiled, assessed and evaluated by administrative authorities with regard to the interests of the parties that may be affected, they have always been the typical case types in which the mediation is appropriate. The relevant practical experiences in the USA and Germany is noteworthy. The mediation of environmental disputes can not only reduce the cost of confrontations and the litigation system, but it can also find a dispute resolution that meets the interests of all parties. This should be actively promoted in the administrative practice and the legal system in Taiwan. At present, there is no explicit provision for the mediation to be carried out in either the administrative processes or administrative litigation processes in Taiwan’s current legal system. However, the procedural regulations of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the Urban Planning Act and the Spatial Planning Act have the feasibility of conducting the environmental disputes mediation. In the area of administrative litigation process, although the Judicial Yuan has studied the 2018 draft amendment to the Administrative Litigation Act and added a mediation system, the relevant provisions of the draft amendment do not fully reflect the nature and importance of the mediation. It is therefore to be feared that the mediation cannot fulfill the function of a comprehensive dispute settlement. If the legislation is pushed further in the future, the content of the original draft must be revised and adapted in order to do justice to the nature of mediation and to distinguish mediation from dispute set tlement.