離岸風電合約仲裁之新趨勢──以離岸風電行政契約之仲裁容許性為中心

New Trends in Offshore Wind Power Contract Arbitration–Focusing on the arbitrability of offshore wind power administrative contracts

我國基於能源安全及分散下，離岸風電占一定發電比例乃是既定之能源政策。為此經濟部能源署已展開三階段之離岸風電之建設。而離岸風電之招商法源是依據再生能源條例及電業法，在經濟部之規劃下，離岸風電之開發商與經濟部能源署所簽之合約為行政契約，在行政契約架構下是否具有仲裁容許性?目前多數見解仍認為離岸風電之行政契約不具仲裁容許性，而此種行政契約如有爭議如以行政訴訟解決緩不濟急，於是法律界乃試圖在法理上研究如何讓離岸風電之合約爭議具有可仲裁性提出各種理論依據。有論者將公共利益與仲裁容許性脫勾來試圖建構行政契約如有爭議時提付仲裁之正當性。本文首先將此一議題嘗試從不同之面向，即從程序法之「審判權相對化」理論來探尋此類行政契約之可仲裁性，本文將先從程序法之理論及最高法院之裁判，來尋求離岸風電行政契約之仲裁容許性與趨勢進行探討。

Based on energy security and the need for decentralization, offshore wind power accounting for a certain proportion of electricity generation is an established energy policy in Taiwan. To this end, the Energy Agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs has initiated a three-phase offshore wind power construction project. The legal basis for attracting investment in offshore wind power projects is the Renewable Energy Act and the Electricity Act. Under the Ministry of Economic Affairs' planning, the contracts signed between offshore wind power developers and the Energy Agency are administrative contracts. Does this administrative contract framework have arbitrability? Currently, most opinions still hold that administrative contracts for offshore wind power do not have arbitrability. Furthermore, resolving disputes through administrative litigation is insufficient in a timely manner. Therefore, the legal community is attempting to study how to make disputes in offshore wind power contracts arbitrable, proposing various theoretical arguments. Some scholars attempt to construct the legitimacy of submitting disputes to arbitration in administrative contracts by decoupling public interest from arbitrability. This article first attempts to explore the arbitrability of such administrative contracts from different perspectives, namely from the theory of ''relativization of judicial power'' in procedural law. This article will first explore the arbitrability and trends of offshore wind power administrative contracts from the perspective of procedural law theory and Supreme Court rulings.