從比較法觀點探討我國碳邊境措施應對碳洩漏之可能性

A Comparative Study on the Feasibility of Carbon Border Measures in ROC to Deal with Carbon Leakage

面對全球氣候治理加速邁向高碳價格之時代，各國為避免高排放產業外移所帶來之碳洩漏風險，陸續採取相關邊境調整措施以維持國內減碳政策之有效性。其中，以歐盟碳邊境調整機制(Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, CBAM)為代表之新型氣候與貿易交疊制度，既標誌著碳定價進入跨境協調之新階段，亦對高度依賴出口之我國形成日益增強之外部壓力。本論文透過碳定價國際法理基礎、碳洩漏風險、全球邊境調整制度演變及我國現行法制缺口等面向進行系統性分析，旨在探討我國是否具備引進邊境調整措施之法治基礎，並評估其在國際競爭、貿易法遵及產業永續轉型之可行性。
首先，本文解析碳定價在國際氣候法下之定位，指出碳稅、排放權交易制度與碳費等工具，雖具不同法律性質，惟在巴黎協定下均可作為國家自訂貢獻(NDCs)之履行手段。其次，本文透過比較法視角檢視歐盟CBAM、美國清潔競爭法案(CCA)等制度，顯示全球主要市場正朝向以產品碳足跡作為核心「外部碳定價化」之趨勢，並對出口國形成法律遵循與產品供應鏈資訊透明度之要求。
進一步地，本文回到我國現行法制，指出我國於排放資訊透明度、盤查品質、產品碳足跡資料治理等方面，與國際透明度架構(ETF)及跨國供應鏈要求存在制度上之落差。碳費制度作為特別公課，其在授權明確性、憲法界限與污染者付費原則上之侷限，使其難以完全因應碳洩漏風險；同時，由於目前未搭配邊境調整措施且行政命令之真空化，導致進口產品未被納入碳成本，產生反向歧視、產業外移及國際扣抵機制不足等問題。
本文綜合分析後認為，我國若欲有效應對全球碳洩漏與貿易風險，須在資料治理、產品碳強度標準、盤查查驗機制、國際互認制度等面向完成制度層面之改革，始能具備引進邊境調整措施之法制條件。惟邊境措施涉及我國稅制定位、貿易法和諧性等重大議題，短期內應優先改善碳資訊透明度及碳定價之實體法相關規定，並逐步建立與國際接軌之制度基礎，以作為未來採行碳邊境措施之前提。

As global climate governance accelerates toward an era of high carbon prices, nations are successively adopting border adjustment measures to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage caused by the relocation of emission-intensive industries, thereby maintaining the effectiveness of their domestic emission reduction policies. Among these, the novel regime intersecting climate and trade, epitomized by the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), not only marks a new phase of cross-border coordination in carbon pricing but also imposes mounting external pressure on Taiwan, a highly export-dependent nation. This thesis conducts a systematic analysis encompassing the international jurisprudential basis of carbon pricing, the risk of carbon leakage, the evolution of global border adjustment regimes, and the regulatory gaps in our current domestic legal system. It aims to explore whether Taiwan possesses the rule-of-law foundation to introduce border adjustment measures and to evaluate their feasibility concerning international competitiveness, trade law compliance, and sustainable industrial transition.
First, this paper analyzes the positioning of carbon pricing under international climate law, noting that instruments such as carbon taxes, Emissions Trading Systems (ETS), and carbon fees, despite their distinct legal natures, can all serve as implementation measures for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Second, through a comparative law perspective, this paper examines regimes such as the EU CBAM and the US Clean Competition Act (CCA). The analysis reveals a trend in major global markets toward the "externalization of carbon pricing" centered on product carbon footprints, which imposes stringent requirements on exporting nations regarding legal compliance and the informational transparency of product supply chains.
Furthermore, turning to Taiwan’s current domestic legal framework, this paper identifies systemic gaps between our practices in emission information transparency, inventory quality, and product carbon footprint data governance, and the requirements of the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) and transnational supply chains. The carbon fee system, functioning constitutionally as a special common levy, faces limitations regarding the principle of clarity of authorization, constitutional boundaries, and the polluter pays principle, making it inadequate to fully address the risk of carbon leakage. Concurrently, the current absence of complementary border adjustment measures and the regulatory vacuum in secondary legislation result in imported products failing to internalize carbon costs. This discrepancy generates issues such as reverse discrimination, industrial relocation, and insufficient international crediting and deduction mechanisms.
Following a comprehensive analysis, this paper concludes that if Taiwan intends to effectively respond to global carbon leakage and trade risks, it must complete systemic reforms in data governance, product carbon intensity standards, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) mechanisms, and international mutual recognition systems. Only then will it attain the necessary legal conditions to introduce border adjustment measures. However, as border measures implicate critical issues such as the characterization of our domestic tax system and harmonization with international trade law, priority in the short term should be given to enhancing carbon information transparency and refining the substantive law provisions governing carbon pricing. This will facilitate the gradual establishment of a systemic foundation aligned with international standards as a prerequisite for adopting carbon border measures in the future.