気候変動と憲法 : 行政機関の統制についての憲法学的考察(危機管理と憲法,【連続シンポジウム】東京発「わが国の政策課題への処方箋」)

DOI Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • A Constitutional Analysis of the Climate Crisis in the United States : The Interpretation of the Regulations by the Administrative Agency and the Court
  • 気候変動と憲法 : 行政機関の統制についての憲法学的考察
  • キコウ ヘンドウ ト ケンポウ : ギョウセイ キカン ノ トウセイ ニ ツイテ ノ ケンポウガクテキ コウサツ

この論文をさがす

抄録

The decision making of the Congress delayed the Clean Air Act. From Bush to Obama administration, EPA has changed its policy to deal with the global warming. MA v. EPA decision held that GHG is "air pollutant" in mobile source such as the automobile, and also that administrative agency has the authority to regulate it. EPA thought that the consistency of interpretation demands GHG from stationary source regulated. The burden to be implemented is so heavy that EPA prepared the coordinated regulation. In UARG decision, majority opinion delivered by Scalia gave up the consistency of the text of CAA as a whole and limited the meaning of pollutant narrowly. "Anyway source" with BACT regulation is still to be reviewed. 2014 decision allows EPA to regulate GHG in Clean Air Act without amendment by the Congress. The Obama administration proposed "Clean Action Plan". Because of the dubious breadth of the text of the statute, the administrative agency may fill up the blank by a technical interpretation of the regulations or policy decisions. The role of the court is to respect the order of administrative agency by "Chevron doctrine". EME Homer decision defers to technical and expertise judgement of the agency. The cost effective approach showed by the Supreme Court is still unclear and to be considered with other decisions and methods of interpretation by Justice of the Supreme Court. According to Prof. Dan Farber, the S.Ct has picked up the cases of which influence is too narrow. The effect on other similar cases is ordinarily limited. The inferior court decision would continue to supply the blank. Roberts Court could have avoided the cases by standing doctrine. By applying the second phase of Chevron doctrine, Roberts Court proceed on the merit. In 2014 Scalia approach was stuck, in EPA v. Michigan is pulled punch to the environmentalism. The duty of Constitutional law scholar is to show the inconsistency of text of the statutes showed by the Supreme Court. Not only order of the administrative agency, interpretation by the judges is under the rule of law.

収録刊行物

  • 法政論叢

    法政論叢 52 (1), 253-280, 2016

    日本法政学会

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ