B. Disputes about the EIA procedure
II. Resolution between Politics and Law
The relevant proceedings, judgments and decisions of the courts in deferent levels could be summarized in Table 2.
5
Table 2 Relevant Cases and Judgments (2 cases & 8 judgments in total)
Cases Judgments of Kaohsiung
Administrative High Court
Judgments of Supreme Administrative Court Beauty Bay BOT
Civil Action
-Complainant: Taiwan Environment Protection Association
-Defendant: Taitung County -Attendant: Beauty Bay Development Company
(100) Su-Ken-Ur 36
Sep 20, 2012 (101) Tzai 1888 (appeal dismissed) Beauty Bay
EIA Annulment
-Complainant: Local Citizens -Defendant: Taitung County -Attendant: Beauty Bay Development Company
Source: by the author
Notes: Su=claim, Pan= substantial judgment, Su-Ken-Yi= first re-claim, Su-Ken-Ur= second re-claim, Tzai=formal judgment
1. the first case “Civil Action about the Beauty Bay BOT project”
The major issues in the first case “Civil Action about the Beauty Bay BOT project”
would be described as the following, according to the final substantial judgments of Kaohsiung Administrative High Court in February 2012, whose reasoning is upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court.
First, concerning the scale of the development of this project, could we divide the entire entire project into two parts? The Kaohsiung Administrative High Court reviewed the entire contract between BBDC and the TCG, and concluded that since in the project all the constructions of hotels, spa, beach facilities, parking lots…etc. are listed, we should take all the project as a whole, and cannot just use the first stage of development for the hotel as criteria for EIA procedure. Thus, the EIA for the entire project is necessary according to EIA Act.
Second, the Kaohsiung Administrative High Court held that since there’s no EIA (the later EIA in 2008 is also annulled, we will discussed later), the permit for construction in 2005 should be invalid ab initio, according to article 14.1 of EIA Act,
“the industry competent authority may not grant permission for a development activity prior to the completion of an environmental impact statement review or the authorization of an environmental impact assessment report; permission granted in violation of this regulation shall be invalid.”
Third, what should the TCG do? The Kaohsiung Administrative High Court held that according the the art.22 of the EIA Act, “Those developers that, prior to receiving the authorization of the competent authority pursuant to Article 7 or Article 13, directly pursue a development activity in Article 5, Paragraph 1 shall be fined NT$300,000 to NT$1.5 million; for such a developer, the competent authority shall
notify the industry competent authority to issue an order for the suspension of the implementation of the development activity. When necessary, the competent authority may directly issue an order for the suspension of the implementation of the development activity; for those that fail to comply with such an order, the statutory responsible person shall be punished by a maximum of three years imprisonment, detention and may be fined a maximum of NT$300,000.” Thus, the TGC should order the BBDC for suspension of development.
2. the second case concerning the annulment of EIA
For the second case concerning the annulment of EIA in 2008, in 2009 the Kaohsiung Administrative High Court held that according to EIA Act article 3.2,
“when the industry competent authority is the developer, industry competent authority members shall withdraw from the voting process”. In this case, based on the administrative contract (BOT project contract) concluded between the TCG and the BBDC, we could tell that the TGC is also a party for the development. Thus, the members of the TGC should withdraw from the voting process. Consequently, the conclusion of the EIA procedure in 2008 is invalid. These arguments of Kaohsiung Administrative High Court are also upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2012.
B. Political Reactions and after
Very interestingly, even though all the two case shown above illustrates that an EIA is needed and the permit for construction of Hotel of BBDC is invalid, the TGC still reopened a new EIA procedure again and reached a conclusion of conditional approval on 22 December 2012. Again here’s the inquiry: could we have an EIA after the construction of Hotel?
Almost all the scholars in environmental law and administrative law in Taiwan proposed that a posterior EIA is illegal, even proposed that since the permit of construction for this Hotel is invalid, all the EIA should be reopened after the destruction of Hotel1. However, politically, the responses differ.
For example, the competent authority for all the constructions of buildings, namely the Ministry of Interior, its Minister declared in public in December 2012 that the building of Hotel is illegal and should be broke down by the TGC. An official notice is also issued by the MoI to the TCG. However, till now, the Hotel remains there.
On the other hand, for the EIA, the central EPA announced that the TGC had the power of deliberation to decide whether or not to destruct the Hotel first before the reopening of EIA. The crucial argument bases on the article 14 of the EIA Act, which states that “the industry competent authority may not grant permission for a development activity prior to the completion of an environmental impact statement review or the authorization of an environmental impact assessment report; permission granted in violation of this regulation shall be invalid”. The EPA considers that in
1 Chien-Liang Lee, Evasion of Environmental Impact Assessment: the Case of Beauty Bay, Taiwan Law Journal, vol.210, 15 Dec 2012, p.68-86; Yu-Cheng Wang, Clarification for Application of Environmental Impact Assessment Act form the Civil Action of the Beauty Bay Case, Taiwan Law Review, vol.213, February 2013, p.39-59. (all in Chinese)
7
2008, an EIA was completed, even though it was later annulled by the court. Thus, the second permission of construction issued in 2008 was made after an EIA (even though invalid), thus the permission of construction is not invalid. Here’s some ambiguity in original Chinese version of this article.
Furthermore, a new EIA procedure was done again on 22 December 2012 by the TCG. Nevertheless, a new claim against the 2012 EIA to the EPA was filed on 5 March 2013.
Conclusion
Through this case study about the Beauty Bay development project and relevant judicial judgments and political reactions, we could clearly see obvious conflicts between politics and law.
First, the distribution of competences in the EIA Act seems to be ambiguous, so that the genuine competent authority for EIA is not clear. Second, even though the courts in different levels finally annulled the permission of construction issued by local government because of lacks of procedural requirements of EIA, both the central EPA and the local government still insist that the EIA procedure could be compensated a posterior for the development project. On the one hand, the ignorance of judicial binding force by the political organs, even though through some legalist tricks for interpretation of relevant laws and regulations, remarks some legal crisis in the EIA procedure and the unprecedented lack of the necessary compliance to courts’
judgments in Taiwan. However, on the other hand, the MoI insists the illegality of the permission of construction. These divergences among political organs even make the disputes worse and complicated. As a state who obeys the principle of rule of law, all these disputes should reach to an end by judicial means in Taiwan; even some later possibility of political responses is foreseeable in the limits of relevant laws and regulations.
Besides of the conflict between politics and law, we could also observe some tension between the needs for economic development and environmental protection, intervened also by the different concerns between cosmopolitan elites in the environmental protection civil groups and local anonymous people who eager to earn their living. When the environmentalists urge the necessity for protecting the last paradise in Taiwan, some other argues that these Taipei elites just want to preserves their gardens for their leisure purpose, but do not care about the serious problem of unemployment in Taitung County. How to resolve this dilemma? That’s what a proper EIA calls for.
MARDI 3 SEPTEMBRE 2013 - de 14h à 16h
TUESDAY, 3RD SEPTEMBER 2013 - 14.00 to 16.00 pm
RCSL Working Group - Comparative Studies of Legal Professions - Women/Gender in the Legal Profession and Comparative Studies of Legal Professions
Chair: Ulrike SCHULTZ, Academic Senior Councillor, Law Faculty, University of Hagen, Germany Session 1: Gender and Judging and Women Law Professors
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD002
Moderator: Leny DE GROOT, Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen, Faculty of Law, Netherland
Anne BOIGEOL, Researcher, Institute for Political Social Sciences, ENS CACHAN, France Gender Balance/imbalance in French magistrature: institutional and professional challenges Ana OLIVEIRA, Researcher, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal & Elida Lauris DOS SANTOS, Researcher, Center of Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal Women as Judges in Portugal
Peter ROBSON, Professor of Law, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom Women Barristers on TV - the British experience
Leny DE GROOT, Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen, Faculty of Law, Netherland Derkje Hazewinkel-Suringa, first female Law Professor in the Netherlands
Ulrike SCHULTZ, Academic Senior Councillor, Law Faculty, University of Hagen, Germany Pedigrees and Power, Professors of Public Law in Germany
RCSL Working Group - Human Rights - Sociology of Human Rights
Chair: Dani RUDNICKI, Professor, UFRGS, Brazil Session 1
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD003 Raphaëlle NOLLEZ-GOLDBACH, CNRS Researcher, Paris, France Questioning Human Rights Effectiveness
Daniela URZOLA, Undergraduate, University of Cartagena, Faculty of Law, Colombia Human Rights of the Other: Deconstructing the Subject of Human Rights
Michele GRIGOLO, FCT Post-doctoral, Centre for Social Studies (CES), University of Coimbra, Portugal
The ‘Human Rights City’: an Idea and Agenda for a Sociology of Human Rights
PROGRAMME DETAILLE DES ATELIERS DETAILED WORKSHOPS PROGRAM
* Ce programme est susceptible de modifications.
* The following schedule may be subject to change without notice.
Lucia Maria BRITO DE OLIVEIRA, Professor of Law, Federal District, University of Brasilia, Brazil Rooting Human Rights and Deepening Democracy: the Role of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Les enjeux contemporains de la formation juridique / Contempory Issues in Legal Education
Chairs:
Liora ISRAËL, Lecturer, Higher School of Social Sciences (EHESS), France Rachel VANNEUVILLE, CNRS Researcher, Triangle UMR 5206, France
Session 1
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD004
Discussant: Mauricio Garcia VILLEGAS, Professor, National University of Colombia, Colombia Hélène ZIMMERMANN, Lecturer, University of Laval, France
Towards a Revolution in Legal Thinking? Empirical Research in a Civil Law School
Marcos Vinício CHEIN FERES, Professor / Researcher, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil
A New Methodological Approach for teaching “Institutions of Law”
Safia BOUABDALLAH, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University Jean-Monnet of Saint-Etienne, France L’enseignement trans-systémique du droit en Europe, vers la formation juridique de demain ? Luisa Fernanda GARCIA LOZANO, Professor, Nueva Garnada Military University, Colombia An Alternative to Legal Education: Popular Education as Political Content
Entre le social et le judiciaire : tension, absorption ou coopération ? / Between the Social and the Judicial: Tension, Absorption or Cooperation?
Chairs:
Emmanuelle BERNHEIM, Professor, Juridical Sciences Department, University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada
Pierre NOREAU, Professor, University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada Session 1: Clash of Legal and Non-Legal Reference Systems
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD005
Moderators: Emmanuelle BERNHEIM, Professor, Juridical Sciences Department, University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada & Pierre NOREAU, Professor, University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada Bernard HUBEAU, Professor Sociology of Law, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Socially Responsible Legal Aid and the Role of Society
Krystyna DANIEL, Professor, Jagiellonian University of Krakow, Poland Media, Judiciary and Society
Justice transitionnelle et pacification politique / Transitional Justice and Political Peace Settlement
Chair: Xavier PHILIPPE, Professor, University Paul Cezanne, Aix-en-Provence & University of Marseille III, France / Director, Louis Favoreu Institut-GERJC, Aix-en-Provence, France
Session 1: Les ressorts de la pacification politique par la justice transitionnelle Manufacture des Tabacs - MD006
André-Jean ARNAUD, CNRS Research Director Emeritus, Center of Legal Theory, University of Paris X Ouest Nanterre - La Défense, France / Co-Director of the European Network on Law and Society, House of the Sciences of Man, Paris, France / President of the Law and Society Association
Au-delà de la ‘paix des braves’. Une approche sémiologique de Justice et Vérité
Andrew WOLMAN, Associate Professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea Truth Commissions and a Distinctively Korean Transitional Justice
Verena ZOPPEI, PhD Candidate, University of Milan, Italy Si Vis Pacem, Cole Justitiam
Valeria VERDOLINI, Post-doctoral Fellow, University of Milan, Italy
Practices of Liberation and Practices of Liberty: the Case of Tunisian Arab Spring
RCSL Working Group - Comparative Studies of Legal Professions - Subgroup Management in/and Justice
Réformes et managérialisation de la justice et des organisations judiciaires / Reforms and Managerialisation of the Legal Profession and Legal Organisations
Chair: Frédéric SCHOENAERS, Professor, University of Liege, Belgium Session 1
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD304
Moderator: Frédéric SCHOENAERS, Professor, University of Liege, Belgium
Christian MOUHANNA, CNRS Researcher, Center for Sociological Research on Law and Criminal Justice Institutions (CESDIP), France
The French Public Prosecutor Between Upstream and Downstream: an Organizational Schizophrenia Isabelle SAYN, CNRS Researcher, University of Saint-Etienne, University of Lyon, France Les outils d’aide à la décision dans le fonctionnement de la justice
Marianne COTTIN, Lecturer, University Jean Monnet of Saint-Etienne, Human Rights Research Center (CERCRID), France
La mesure de l’activité non pénale des parquets
Vanessa PERROCHEAU, Lecturer in Law, University of Saint-Etienne, France
Un exemple de managérialisation de la justice pénale : les barèmes de composition pénale
Christophe MINCKE, Director of the Criminology Department, National Institute of Forensic Sciences and Criminology, France
Justice and Management, an Unexpected Lovestory. Mobility as a Matchmaker
Règles juridiques, règles sociales / Legal Rules, Social Rules
Chairs:
Vincent SIMOULIN, Director of the CERTOP UMR 5044, University of Toulouse 2 Le Mirail, France Gilbert DE TERSSAC, CNRS Research Director, CERTOP UMR 5044, University of Toulouse 2 Le
Mirail, France Session 1
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD305
a) La construction et la transformation des règles sociales
Caroline PROTAIS, Doctor of Sociology, Higher School of Social Sciences (EHESS), France L’expertise psychiatrique des malades mentaux : savoir psychiatrique, termes juridiques et valeurs sociales
Michal DUDEK, PhD Student, Jagiellonian Universisty of Krakow, Poland
Law as a Product of Communication, Subject of Communication and Factor in Communication.
General Framework for Relations Between Law and Communication
Karel YON, CNRS Researcher, Center for European Research on Administration (CERAPS), University of Lille 2, France
How do Unions Make Use of the Rules that Regulate Them? Variations on the Issue of Union Recognition
b) La nature des règles juridiques
Olivier LECLERC, CNRS Researcher, University Jean Monnet of Saint-Etienne - Human Rights Research Center (CERCRID), France
Legal Incentives and Action. Towards a Characterization of Legal Incentives in Public Policy Danielle CHEVALIER, PhD Candidate, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Setting the Rules: The Juridification of Social Norms in Public Space
Droit et construction sociale de l’incertain / Law and the Social Construction of Uncertainty
Chair: Pierre GUIBENTIF, Professor of Sociology, Institute of Science of Work and Society, University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal / Vice-President of Law and Society Association
Session 1: Uncertainty in Current Legal Manufacture des Tabacs - MD306
Chair: Pierre GUIBENTIF, Professor of Sociology, Institute of Science of Work and Society, University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal / Vice-President of Law and Society Association Elisa FOIS, PhD Candidate, University of Turin, Italy & University of Toulouse 1 - Capitole, France
& Elisa RUOZZI, Researcher, University of Turin, Italy & University of Toulouse 1 - Capitole, France
Risk Society and its Impact on the Application and Effectiveness of Legal Principles Eric CHAREST, Professor, National Academy for Public Administration (ENAP), France
Managérialisation du cadre juridique pour combattre la discrimination: entre certitude des résultats escomptés et l’incertain des réponses à apporter
Faïza KADRI, Student, University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada La fabrique de l’incertain juridique : diviser pour mieux régner ?
Comment faire la norme et qu’en faire ? Les fonctionnaires entre fabrique et usages du droit / How To Do a Rule And What Do Do With It? Bureaucrats Between the Fabrication
and Usages of Legal Rules
Chairs:
Gildas TANGUY, Lecturer in Political Science, Institute of Political Studies of Toulouse, France Jean-Michel EYMERI-DOUZANS, Professor in Political Science / Assistant Director in charge of the Strategic and International Development, Institute of Political Studies of Toulouse, France
Session 1
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD307
Moderator: Gildas TANGUY, Lecturer in Political Sciences, Institute of Political Studies of Toulouse, France
Patrice DURAN, Professor / Researcher, Institute for Political Social Sciences, ENS Cachan, France Droit et action publique, la responsabilité administrative en tension
Benjamin MOREL, PhD Candidate, Institute for Political Social Sciences, ENS Cachan, France Le droit comme ressource d’affirmation institutionnelle pour les fonctionnaires parlementaires Françoise DREYFUS, Emeritus Professor, University of Paris 1, France
Le Conseil d’État, acteur occulté de la fabrique du droit
Vincent LEBROU, PhD Candidate, University of Paris 8, University of Strasbourg, France Quand la coordination devient production : le rôle de la Commission de contrôle des fonds européens dans la conformation des administrations locales
La justice dans/hors l’Etat ? Dispositifs de justice, formes et échelles de gouvernement / Justice Inside or Outside the State? Justice Devices, Forms and Levels of Government
Chair: Laurence DUMOULIN, Researcher, Institute for Political Social Studies, ENS Cachan, France Session 1: The Globalization of Law and Justice: Emergence of New Models and New
Practices?
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD308
Introduction: Laurence DUMOULIN, Researcher, Institute for Political Social Studies, ENS Cachan, France
The Europeanization of law and justice: Processes and Consequences
Simone BENVENUTI, Marie Curie Research Fellow, Central European University, Legal Studies Department, Budapest, Hungary
The Building of a European Judicial System: a Change in the Judicial Paradigm?
Michaël MAIRA, PhD Candidate, University of Saint-Louis, Brussels, Belgium
The Political Consequences of CJEU-Citizenship Jurisprudence on State Authority on the Welfare in Belgium
International, National and Local Justice Devices: Mix and Match
Andrew WOLMAN, Associate Professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea Linking the Local and Global: On the Growing Interconnectedness of Sub-National Human Rights Institutions and the International Human Rights Regime
Networking the Rule of Law: Influence of Legal and Judicial Standards in the West and the East
Chairs:
Daniela PIANA, Professor, Department of Political Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy Michal BOBEK, Professor of European Law, College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium
Session 1: Institutions et Constitutions Manufacture des Tabacs - MD309
Chair: Michal BOBEK, Professor of European Law, College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium
Cristina DALLARA, Permanent Researcher, Research Institute on Judicial Systems of the National Research Council (IRSIG-CNR), Bologna, Italy
Transnational Legal Institutions as Source for European Normative Power: The Increasing Role of the Council of Europe Venice Commission on Judicial Standards
Elaine MAK, Associate Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands
The Influence of European Standards on Judicial Management in the Netherlands, France, Hungary and Romania: Comparing Councils for the Judiciary
Ramona COMAN, Assistant Professor, Free University of Brussels, Belgium
Judicial Reforms Beyond Conditionality, a Play of Light and Shadows. The Case of Hungary David KOSAR, Assistant Professor, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
Balkanization of the Slovak Judiciary: When the EU/CoE Judicial Council Goes Wrong
Simone BENVENUTI, Marie Curie Research Fellow, Central European University, Legal Studies Department, Budapest, Hungary
Who Defines judicial-training standards in the EU and for Whom? The Case of the European Judicial Training Network
Luca VERZELLONI, Post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of Bologna, Italy
The Role of Observatories in the Path of the Italian Justice System Towards European judicial standards
Work in Progress - Justice - Access to Justice
Chair: Benoît BASTARD, CNRS Research Director, Institute for Political Social Sciences, ENS Cachan, France
Session 1
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD315
Gaëlle DEHARO, Professor of Private Law, University of Paris 1, France
Les opérateurs économiques dans le procès : paradigmes de l’émergence d’un nouveau territoire de justice ?
Élida Lauris DOS SANTOS, Researcher, Center of Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal Change and Innovation in Access to Justice: the Public Defender System in Sao Paulo
Romain JUSTON, PhD Candidate, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France Incertitude du droit, certitude de la science ?
MARDI 3 SEPTEMBRE 2013 - de 16h15 à 18h15 TUESDAY, 3RD SEPTEMBER 2013 - 4.15 to 6.15pm
RCSL Working Group - Comparative Studies of Legal Professions - Women/Gender in the Legal Profession and Comparative Studies of Legal Professions
Chair: Ulrike SCHULTZ, Academic Senior Councilor, Law Faculty, University of Hagen, Germany Session 2 - Gender and Judging in Japan
Manufacture des Tabacs - MD002
Chair: Kayo MINAMINO, Professor, Faculty of Law, Kyoto Women’s University, Japan Kayo MINAMINO, Professor, Faculty of Law, Kyoto Women’s University, Japan
Access to Justice/Access to Gender Justice
Atsuko MIWA, Researcher, Kyoto Human Rights Research Institute, Japan
Gender Justice or Retention of “Public Order and Morals”? From several cases of Japanese courts
Gender Justice or Retention of “Public Order and Morals”? From several cases of Japanese courts