1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Law
  4. NSC Projects
  5. Item

Publications-NSC Projects

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 環境刑法處罰過失犯之正當基礎
Legitimate Basis of Negligence Crime in Environmental Law
作者 李聖傑
貢獻者 法律系
關鍵詞 環境刑法; 過失犯; 環境法益; 風險刑法; 行政刑法
Environmental Criminal Law; Negligent Crime; Legal Interest of Environment; the Penal Code Risk; Administrative Criminal Law
日期 2019-10
上傳時間 31-Jul-2025 15:49:35 (UTC+8)
摘要 「環境保護」作為現代法治國家社會之基本共識，歷經數十年之辯論與實踐，已逐漸確立由國家機關作為環境保護之主導模式，並創設相關規範限制特定行為、管制特定營業，並專設機關查核與保護環境。其中，立法者借用存在於人類社會已久之「刑事制裁」體系，針對破壞環境之行為賦予刑事制裁，即學理所稱之「環境刑法」，亦是環境保護規範中向來備受關注之領域。　　環境規範與刑事制裁於我國之緣起，如同諸多現代經濟朝向已開發國家之情形，係肇因於經濟發展所產生之環境污染，與公民環保意識之崛起，我國並於1987年行政院設置環保署等專責機構後，逐漸形成以保護環境為共通目的之整體架構 ，並包含所謂「環境刑法」。單就「環境刑法」之發展過程而言，我國學說見解長期受到「環境法益」之不確定性所影響。然而，社會共識對環境保護之高度共識，並不因為前述法律議題之困難而卻步，最終於2017年司法改革國是會議中，提出我國應擴大環境犯罪處罰範圍之建議。　　本計畫統整分析德國與我國學說見解以後，業已釐清我國環境犯罪確有擴張必要，惟就「環境過失犯」而言，其擴張處罰之必要性，與如何實際落實於立法技術，並與既有過失犯處罰體系接軌，都必須仰賴確實之學說見解討論。首先，本計畫分析我國與德國環境刑法的立法模式後，指出直接參照德國法規用語之慣習立法模式已不足採。其次，根據文獻整理與分析結果，得認為於我國欠缺對於德國環境過失犯之通盤理解時，單純參考德國環境刑法之用語之立法方式，顯然不適用於具有複雜特徵之環境刑法，甚至可能促使我國環境過失犯流於恣意判斷，進而扼殺甚至消弭其原得發揮之良善功能，退一步言之，於我國主流環境法益理論無法解釋我國為何需要環境過失犯之時，環境過失犯除擴大環境刑法的象徵功能外，是否具有其他實際意義，亦是令人懷疑，而有待於本計畫先行確認符合我國法制現況與共識之環境法益內涵後，方得判斷德國法制之立法模式，是否有值得我國參考之處。
After decades of debate and practice, environmental protection, which as the basic consensus of the modern society, has gradually established the mode of government as the leader. Under normal circumstances, governments of different countries set normative measures to restrict specific behaviors, control specific businesses, and set up special agencies to check and protect the environment. Among them, the legislators use the existing "criminal sanctions" to impose criminal sanctions on behaviors that destroy the environment, which is what academic calls "Environmental Criminal Law." It is also an area of ??great concern in environmental protection norms.The origin of environmental norms and criminal sanctions originated in our country, as in many modern countries, the result of environmental pollution caused by economic development and the rise of environmental awareness of citizens. In 1987, when the Executive Yuan set up special agencies such as the Environmental Protection Administration, our country gradually formed a framework for the protection of the environment. Our academic comments on "Environmental Criminal Law" are also often affected by the characteristics of environmental criminal law, namely, the uncertainty of "environmental law interest". However, regardless of the aforesaid legal difficulties, the 2017 National Conference on Judicial Reform still proposed that our country should expand the scope of punishment for environmental crimes. After finishing the discussion between Germany and Taiwan this project clarifies that the scope of environmental crime needs to be expanded is really what our country needs. However, as for "environmental mistakes," we still have to rely on more academic discussion and use it to test the necessity of the expansionary punishment and how to actually implement it in legislative technology.First, the project analyzes the legislative model of environmental criminal law in China and Germany. This is not feasible if our country directly refers to the German legal language. In other words, if we lack a general understanding of the environmental negligence in Germany, simply referring to the legislative approach of German environmental criminal law clearly does not apply to environmental criminal law with complex features. What is worse, this may prompt our country's environmental criminal law in a chaotic situation. In retrospect, it is also doubtful whether negligence have any other practical significance except to expand the symbolic function of environmental criminal law when the mainstream opinion in Taiwan can not explain why our country needs environmental negligence. Therefore, after the project first confirms the connotation of the environmental law and interests conformed to the status quo and consensus of the legal system in our country, we can judge whether the legislative model of German legal system is worthy of our country's reference.
關聯 科技部, MOST107-2410-H004-059, 107.08-108.07
資料類型 report
dc.contributor 法律系
dc.creator (作者) 李聖傑
dc.date (日期) 2019-10
dc.date.accessioned 31-Jul-2025 15:49:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 31-Jul-2025 15:49:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 31-Jul-2025 15:49:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158247-
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 「環境保護」作為現代法治國家社會之基本共識，歷經數十年之辯論與實踐，已逐漸確立由國家機關作為環境保護之主導模式，並創設相關規範限制特定行為、管制特定營業，並專設機關查核與保護環境。其中，立法者借用存在於人類社會已久之「刑事制裁」體系，針對破壞環境之行為賦予刑事制裁，即學理所稱之「環境刑法」，亦是環境保護規範中向來備受關注之領域。　　環境規範與刑事制裁於我國之緣起，如同諸多現代經濟朝向已開發國家之情形，係肇因於經濟發展所產生之環境污染，與公民環保意識之崛起，我國並於1987年行政院設置環保署等專責機構後，逐漸形成以保護環境為共通目的之整體架構 ，並包含所謂「環境刑法」。單就「環境刑法」之發展過程而言，我國學說見解長期受到「環境法益」之不確定性所影響。然而，社會共識對環境保護之高度共識，並不因為前述法律議題之困難而卻步，最終於2017年司法改革國是會議中，提出我國應擴大環境犯罪處罰範圍之建議。　　本計畫統整分析德國與我國學說見解以後，業已釐清我國環境犯罪確有擴張必要，惟就「環境過失犯」而言，其擴張處罰之必要性，與如何實際落實於立法技術，並與既有過失犯處罰體系接軌，都必須仰賴確實之學說見解討論。首先，本計畫分析我國與德國環境刑法的立法模式後，指出直接參照德國法規用語之慣習立法模式已不足採。其次，根據文獻整理與分析結果，得認為於我國欠缺對於德國環境過失犯之通盤理解時，單純參考德國環境刑法之用語之立法方式，顯然不適用於具有複雜特徵之環境刑法，甚至可能促使我國環境過失犯流於恣意判斷，進而扼殺甚至消弭其原得發揮之良善功能，退一步言之，於我國主流環境法益理論無法解釋我國為何需要環境過失犯之時，環境過失犯除擴大環境刑法的象徵功能外，是否具有其他實際意義，亦是令人懷疑，而有待於本計畫先行確認符合我國法制現況與共識之環境法益內涵後，方得判斷德國法制之立法模式，是否有值得我國參考之處。
dc.description.abstract (摘要) After decades of debate and practice, environmental protection, which as the basic consensus of the modern society, has gradually established the mode of government as the leader. Under normal circumstances, governments of different countries set normative measures to restrict specific behaviors, control specific businesses, and set up special agencies to check and protect the environment. Among them, the legislators use the existing "criminal sanctions" to impose criminal sanctions on behaviors that destroy the environment, which is what academic calls "Environmental Criminal Law." It is also an area of ??great concern in environmental protection norms.The origin of environmental norms and criminal sanctions originated in our country, as in many modern countries, the result of environmental pollution caused by economic development and the rise of environmental awareness of citizens. In 1987, when the Executive Yuan set up special agencies such as the Environmental Protection Administration, our country gradually formed a framework for the protection of the environment. Our academic comments on "Environmental Criminal Law" are also often affected by the characteristics of environmental criminal law, namely, the uncertainty of "environmental law interest". However, regardless of the aforesaid legal difficulties, the 2017 National Conference on Judicial Reform still proposed that our country should expand the scope of punishment for environmental crimes. After finishing the discussion between Germany and Taiwan this project clarifies that the scope of environmental crime needs to be expanded is really what our country needs. However, as for "environmental mistakes," we still have to rely on more academic discussion and use it to test the necessity of the expansionary punishment and how to actually implement it in legislative technology.First, the project analyzes the legislative model of environmental criminal law in China and Germany. This is not feasible if our country directly refers to the German legal language. In other words, if we lack a general understanding of the environmental negligence in Germany, simply referring to the legislative approach of German environmental criminal law clearly does not apply to environmental criminal law with complex features. What is worse, this may prompt our country's environmental criminal law in a chaotic situation. In retrospect, it is also doubtful whether negligence have any other practical significance except to expand the symbolic function of environmental criminal law when the mainstream opinion in Taiwan can not explain why our country needs environmental negligence. Therefore, after the project first confirms the connotation of the environmental law and interests conformed to the status quo and consensus of the legal system in our country, we can judge whether the legislative model of German legal system is worthy of our country's reference.
dc.format.extent 116 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype text/html-
dc.relation (關聯) 科技部, MOST107-2410-H004-059, 107.08-108.07
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 環境刑法; 過失犯; 環境法益; 風險刑法; 行政刑法
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Environmental Criminal Law; Negligent Crime; Legal Interest of Environment; the Penal Code Risk; Administrative Criminal Law
dc.title (題名) 環境刑法處罰過失犯之正當基礎
dc.title (題名) Legitimate Basis of Negligence Crime in Environmental Law
dc.type (資料類型) report