【作者】 王慧；

【导师】 张怡；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 环境与资源保护法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 随着全球范围内环境规制方法的改革,基于市场化机制的环境规制方法受到学界越来越多的支持,与此同时环境政策制定者也对基于市场化机制的环境规制方法表现出越来越多的关注。正是在环境规制方法处于不断变革的背景下,环境税制度逐渐进入人们的视野。此外,加之风靡全球的财政制度改革,环境税改革也引起了财政管理机构的关注。从环境保护的角度来看,环境税制度被人们寄托了改善环境品质的厚望,从财政改革的角度来看,环境税制度被人们赋予了重构理性税制的重任。虽然环境税制度理论上具有改善环境品质和重构理性税制的功能,但是奇怪的是环境税制度的社会实践背离了环境税的理论预期。首先,从国家层面来看,环境税立法不仅进程缓慢而且结果偏离预期;其次,从国际层面来看,除了那些经受财政危机的国家,其它国家很少将环境税制度纳入其议事日程。纵观国内外的环境税立法及其实践,我们不难发现环境税理论和实践之所以出现偏差,主要源于政策制定者对于以下因素的考虑。首先,从国内角度来看,一国的环境税立法必然受制于该国的社会政策,即一国的环境税立法必须融合分配正义和产业竞争等社会政策,否则一国的环境税立法难以获得合法性基础。其次,从国际角度来看,随着全球经济一体化的加快,环境税立法越来越受制于国际贸易规则的制约,比如有些国家制定的环境税制度在国际贸易规制中的合法性地位已被贸易争端解决机构所否决,所以除非制定多国参与的国际环境税规则,否则环境税制度在国际贸易规则中的合法性地位就难以保障。虽然环境税由于具有环境保护的作用而成为人们青睐的环境规制方法,但是环境税概念的混乱给人们带来了无限的困惑,生态税、能源税和矫正税等概念的交替出现有时使得人们难以理解环境税制度的本质,在现有的环境税研究文献中环境税由于研究者的出发点不同而承担了不同的使命。虽然各种环境税概念都宣称保护环境,但是这些环境税概念有时在不同的研究文献中具有不同的含义,有时甚至具有相反的含义。本文第一章主要梳理环境税的理论和实践,并对环境税理论和实践的背离做出解释。首先,环境税的研究可以追溯到英国经济学家庇古对于社会环境福利的研究,正是由于庇古对坏境税研究所做出的贡献,环境税一般被称为庇古税。根据福利经济学理论,环境税不仅具有将社会成本内部化的作用,而且具有推动环境保护技术研发的作用,所以理论上环境税是规制环境问题的有效方法。但是,福利经济学家对环境税的推崇受到有些经济学家的质疑,以科斯为代表的经济学家认为环境问题的解决应该借助财产权制度,即明晰的环境产权是解决环境问题的最有效方法,而作为政府规制方法的环境税并不是解决环境问题的有效方法。其次,纵观国内外的环境税实践,我们不难发现各国采用的环境税类型较为多元,不仅包括具有庇古税性质的环境税,而且包括与庇古税性质差异较大的环境补贴。此外,由于环境税的制定与财政改革密切相关,所以环境税出现了以增加财政收入为目的的功能异化。最后,各国采取的环境税制度都出现了某种程度的结构偏差,即很少有国家完全遵循庇古理论来设计环境税制度。环境税制度之所以出现理论与实践的背离主要源于技术因素和政治因素,从技术角度来看,现有的环境监测技术无法保证立法者设计出准确的环境税税率等环境税的构成要素,从政治角度来看,环境税立法往往需要平衡各种利益主体,这导致环境税的立法难以按照一般的理论来设计。从国内外环境税的立法过程来看,环境税立法通常会遇到较大的政治阻力,环境税的制定者试图借助“双重红利”理论来获得公众的政治支持,按照“双重红利”理论,环境税不仅具有保护环境的“一重红利”,而且具有保障就业改善社会福利的“二重红利”。但是,“双重红利”理论逐渐受到人们的质疑,已有的环境税实证研究揭示环境税并不具有保护环境和改善社会福利的“双重红利”效果。在“双重红利”理论受到不断质疑的背景下,环境税立法受到诸多社会政策的困扰,其中产业竞争政策和分配正义政策对环境税立法产生的影响最大。按照税捐正义原则,任何税收立法都应该体现公平、正义原则,否则税收立法便不具有合法性基础。基于此,各国的环境税立法应将产业竞争政策和分配正义政策体现在环境税立法中,否则环境税立法因缺乏合法性基础而不具有政治上的可行性。但是,过于强调产业竞争政策和分配正义政策可能会消减环境税的环境保护功能。为了使得环境税立法具有合法性基础并具有政治上的可行性,环境税立法可以采用一定的策略并遵循一定的原则。本文第二章将对这些问题详加探讨。随着经济全球化进程的不断加快,一个国家制定环境税制度时除了需要考虑本国的国情之外,比如每个国家制定各自的环境税时都会考虑产业竞争和分配正义等社会问题,还要考虑环境税制度在国际规则体系中的合法性地位。在现行的国际规则体系中,与一国环境税立法关系最为密切的国际规则主要是GATT/WTO中有关国际贸易的规则。在GATT/WTO有关国际贸易的规则中,与环境税立法联系最多的当属规定了国民待遇原则的GATT第3条。按照国民待遇原则,“相同产品”应该在GATT缔约国/WTO成员国之间受到“平等对待”,否则缔约国/成员国实施的贸易措施违反了GATT/WTO的国民待遇义务。从GATT/WTO争端解决机制针对国民待遇原则纠纷的裁决来看,起初基于贸易自由的强调,国民待遇条款通常被严格解释,此时环境保护要素往往不是判断“相同产品”的标准之一,所以环境税制度通常无法在国际贸易规则中取得合法地位。但是随着环境保护运动在全球的兴起,以及多边贸易组织对于环境保护议题的逐渐接纳,多边贸易争端解决机制对国民待遇条款逐的解释越来越朝着有利于环境保护的方向发展,这样的变化使得环境税在国际贸易规制中的合法性地位得到不断的强化。但是,由于多边贸易争端解决机制所裁决的案件不具有“先例”的功效,所以环境税在多边贸易体制中的合法性地位具有一定的不确定性。本文第三章将探讨多边贸易规则绿色化趋势下的环境法合法性及其面临的挑战。在多边贸易体制中,除了GATT第3条的“国民待遇”规定与环境税在多边贸易体制中的合法性密切相关之外。多边贸易体制中的例外条款也与环境税的合法性相关,按照多边贸易体制的例外条款特别是GATT第20条的规定,多边贸易组织的成员国可以将合理的环境保护政策作为其背离国民待遇义务的合法理由。从现有的有关贸易与环境的贸易争端案件来看,GATT第20条常常被多边贸易组织的成员国作为证明其贸易措施具有合法性的依据。与国民待遇条款只有通过扩大解释才能为环境税的合法性获得法律依据不同,GATT第20明文规定环境保护可以作为证明那些偏离国民待遇义务的贸易措施具有正当性的理由。从GATT第20条的文本规定及GATT/WTO争端解决机制对本条的解释适用来看,GATT第20条可以被成员国作为证明其采用的环境税具有合法性的依据。但是,从推动贸易自由的角度来看,GATT第20条极易成为有些国家实施贸易保护目的的工具,在贸易自由主义者看来,有些国家会借环境税制度之名而实施贸易保护主义之实。基于此,应该平衡贸易自由和环境保护,否则环境保护和自由贸易都可能受到负面影响。具体就环境税而言,不管从贸易自由的角度来看,还是从国家环境保护的角度来看,环境税制度必须加强国家之间的国际协调,否则贸易自由主义者者会担忧各国差异较大的环境税制度会成为贸易自由的绊脚石,而环境保护主义者会因为各国差异较大的环境税制度而对环境税制度保护环境的作用产生怀疑。只有制定多国参与的国际环境税规则,环境税制度才能实现环境保护和推动贸易自由的目的。在现行的国际税收框架下,制定国际环境税规则的最适宜方式就是完善现行的边境税调整制度,只有这样环境税制度在多边贸易体制中的合法性地位才会得到保障。此外,环境税在多边贸易体制中的合法性地位还与多边贸易体制中的补贴规则相关,完善的环境补贴规则也是环境税获得合法性地位的必要基础。本文第四章将对这些问题进行系统论述。总之,作为环境保护手段的环境税要想实现保护环境的目的,不仅需要考虑诸如分配正义、产业竞争等决定环境税合法性的社会政策,而且需要考虑环境税在多边贸易体制中可能面临的合法性困境,否则环境税的立法一方面因其丧失合法性基础而遭遇难以克服的政治阻力,另一方面因其缺乏合法性依据而被多边贸易组织宣布为非法。更多还原

【Abstract】 As the reforming of environmental regulation method around the world,market-based instrument for environmental regulation attained more and more support from scholar.At the same time,Environmental policy-maker became more interesting in this new type of environmental regulation method.Under this situation,environmental tax has been discussing by many people.Furthermore,as the popular fiscal reform around the world,the environmental tax reform attracting more attention from government fiscal officers.From the environmental protection perspective,environmental tax was thought as the best tool for resolving environmental problem.From fiscal reform perspective,environmental tax was thought as a rational choice for fiscal authority to establish a rational tax system.It is strange that although environmental tax has some advantage in theory,its practice in fact disappoint people who pay attention to it.Firstly,from national perspective,the process of enacting of environmental tax is slow,secondly,from international perspective,environmental tax was seldom considered by country except which was involved in fiscal crisis.According to the enacting and enforcement of environmental tax around the world,the reason why environmental enacting deviating environmental enforcement is that environmental policy maker have to consider following thing.Firstly,from national perspective,the enacting of environmental was adjusted to social policy.Unless the enacting of environmental tax considering distribute justice and industrial competitive,the enacting of environmental tax does not have legal reason.Secondly,from international perspective,as the development of international trade,the enacting of environmental tax was influenced by international trade rule,for example,the environmental tax of some country was thought as illegality by Dispute Settlement Body.Under this situation,unless enacting international environmental tax rule,environmental tax may conflict with international trade rule.As environmental tax was thought as an useful tool for environmental protection,it impressed many people.But when you read environmental tax materials,you may encounter different environmental tax concept,such as corrective tax,ecological tax and energy tax,you may do not kwon what should be environmental tax.Different scholar have different attitude toward environmental tax.Although all environmental tax concept have environmental protection purpose,it has different enlighten for environmental protection.ChapterⅠwill plan to explore the enacting and enforcing of environmental tax,and explain the reason why the enacting of environmental tax deviate the enforcement of environmental tax.Firstly,this chapter will discuss the theory development,theory advantage and theory challenge from theoretical perspective.Based on above theoretical research,we could found many character of environmental tax,such as kinds,function and shortcoming of environmental tax.Secondly, according to the social practice of environmental tax,we could find that environmental tax has many kinds,its function has been changed,and its construction has been reconstruction. Why practicing environmental tax deviate from theoretical environmental tax?This dissertation will explore this problem from technological and political perspective.Asides constrained by technical skill and political consideration,the design of environmental tax depending on social policy.Although double divided theory was used by some scholar to solve attack from people,this theory was suspected by more and more researcher.Among the social policy which influence the enacting of environmental tax, industry competitive and distribution justice play important role.From political economical of environmental tax,the enacting of environmental tax should take consideration of industry competitive and distribution justice.But from the environmental protection perspective,if environmental tax pay more attention to industry competitive and social justice,it may be not good for environmental protection.As a result,we should balance between this two consideration.ChapterⅡwill find the way for balancing.Just as the enacting of environmental tax depending on social policy,the design of environmental tax subject to international trade rule,especially the international trade rule of GATT and WTO.According to the national treatment of GATT/WTO,the“similar product”should treated nationally by party of GATT and member of WTO.If not,related trade measure took by party of GATT and member of WTO break the national treatment principle. From the decision of dispute resolve body,we can find that the national treatment was constructed strictly,which cause environmental tax was thought as illegal in international trade law.But as the development of environmental protection movement,the national treatment clause was explained by environmental protection consideration,which makes environmental tax legal in international trade law.ChapterⅢwill discuss this topic more detail.Among the rule of GATT,the exceptional clauses is corrected with legality of environmental tax.According to exceptional clauses of GATT,especially GATT 20, environmental protection is exceptional reason of national treatment.From the disputes about trade and environment which had emerged,we could find that GATT 20 become an important reason for breach of national treatment by member of WTO.According to enact of GATT 20 and its explanation by GATT/WTO dispute resolve body,we could find that the fact that environmental tax could be justified by GATT 20.But from the perspective of free trade, GATT 20 may be become a tool of trade protectionism.To balance between free trade and trade protectionism,enacting of environmental tax need international cooperation,which can improve both free trade and environmental protection.In a word,the enacting of environmental tax have to consider social policy,such as distribute justice policy and industrial competition policy.Furthermore,the enacting of environmental tax should consider international trade rule.If not,the enacting of environmental tax would be illegality.更多还原