本文探討依據環保秩序法所為行政罰，其中行政罰之對象，依據危害防止法之「責任人」概念稱之。環保秩序法可以視為廣義警察與秩序法之一環，有關責任人之概念源自警察法責任人之基礎理論，因此本文首先介紹責任類型以及多數責任人選定之理論，以作為論述之基礎。另本文以土壤污染整治費用為例，並參考德國聯邦憲法法院之判決，對於狀況責任人之責任界限作探討，並進一步論述環保相關法律在責任人等相關理論之適用問題，且對於其他非環保相關法律，列舉具代表性之法律，針對責任人問題作修正探討。本文並建議，有關我國環保相關法律之狀況責任界限，應可參考德國聯邦憲法法院之判決，對於各項法律作適度修正調整，以期符合環保秩序法上責任人之基礎與責任界限理論。至於我國非環保之相關法律，對於其責任人範聞之擴大或共同責任之承擔，應考量憲法保障人民之資訊自決權，避免淪為封建時代之「連坐法」責任規範，亦應避免侵犯人民行動以及其他各項自由權。

Based on law for administrative penalties, this paper discusses environmental order. Environmental order law can be regarded as part of generalized police law and order. The persons responsible can be derived from the concept of the responsibility of people's basic theory in Police Act. As a basis for the exposition, this paper first introduces types of liability and the selection theories for the majority of the responsibility. This paper also uses soil remediation costs as an example and the German Federal Constitutional Court's decision to discuss the responsibility of the state. The environmental protection law in Taiwan and other relevant persons responsible for the application of the theory, and for other non-related environmental laws is further explored. The legal representative against those responsible for Correction on the issue is also cited in this paper. This paper also suggests that the determination of the boundary of responsibility in the relevant laws of Taiwanese environmental should refer German Federal Constitutional Court's decision to be amended appropriately in order to conform the law on environmental protection order basis for the responsibility and liability limits of the theory. Regarding to non-environmental law, the responsibility for its people to expand the scope of co-responsibility or commitment should consider the people's constitutionally guaranteed right to self-determination of information, avoid becoming the feudal era "involve law" responsibility norms, and also avoid infringement of action and other liberties to people.