在目前環評程序運作中，大多數開發案係有條件通過第一階段環評。此一發展之爭議，以訴訟之形式進入法院體系。本文觀察我國相關環評案例中顯現的問題，認為這些爭議部分源於德式行政法概念體系與美式環評程序之間存有理念差異。 為理解美、德環評制度，本文就兩國的環評制度設計，與司法審查見解加以比較。首先由美國行政法多元主義之轉型理解此程序型管制措施之意義。其後，介紹德國環評制度之移植與司法見解的發展。發現此一源於美國多元主義理解之程序型管制措施，在德國強調實體保障的制度理念下呈現刺激最小化的現象。本文以為此必須與德國強勢綠黨、嚴密的計畫法制等背景綜合觀察，而以統合主義的國家制度互動模式加以理解。在與美、德環評制度之比較下，發現我國環評制度具有相當之特殊性。本文認為，我國環評法的特殊制度設計，反映了環評制度作為民主轉型時期信任建立機制之性質。基於上述觀點，提出現行環評實務運作過於強調專業論述，背離制度設計之時的規範意旨之觀察。並分析現行司法審查實務形成過程中呈現的權力互動與我國民主轉型發展之關係，為此一行政法學之發展提出屬於本土運作脈絡之詮釋。

The design of Taiwan's Environmental Impact Assessment procedure (hereafter referred to as the "EIA procedure") was modeled after the U.S. one. Some environmental groups challenged the operability of this system through litigation. A few opinions assessing EIA decisions have created some degree of confusion. I find that such confusion originates in part from the transplantation structure of a U.S. system into a legal system which conceptual framework being heavily influenced by German law. Local scholars have introduced theories from both countries as guidance. However, none of them has yet provided satisfactory answers to the issues arising in the context of Taiwan. In order to answer the above-mentioned questions, I first reviewed the history of the EIA system in the U.S., prior to comparing it to the German system. I argue that the pluralistic understanding at the core of the U.S. procedure makes it an information-generating process which can trigger conflicting social interactions between the government and the citizenry. The standard of judicial review clearly demonstrates such pluralistic grounds. I further analyzed Germany's administrative law and the EIA system. I consider that public participation in the German administrative decision-making procedure aims to provide reliable information for administrative decision-makers. Mistakes happening in the course of the EIA procedure are very often considered as procedural defects. They are seen as irrelevant so long as the decision resulting thereof is the appropriate one. In contrast to the U.S. and German systems, the unique design of Taiwan's EIA procedure is a trust-building mechanism in response to environmental protests arisen during democratic transition. I propose that legal theory in Taiwan should respond to the context of democratic development instead of considering foreign legal systems as must-be ruling criteria to build and improve our legal system.