傳統行政爭訟當事人適格之問題，在行政訴訟法兼採公益訴訟及集團訴訟，相對的擴大當事人適格之範圍，相關立法例如空氣污染防制法第七十四條、土壤及地下水整治法第四十九條、廢棄物清理法第七十二條等均有環保團體得提起訴訟之規範，從而在當事人適格問題上，亦多受實定法之影響，同時司法院釋字第四六九號解釋在一定程度內已放寬公法爭議當事人適格之判斷，則於第三人為訴訟當事人之適格認定上，似亦毋須恪守是否為權利人作為利害關係之認定標準，酌予放寬其範圍，著重損害之司法救濟。至必要共同訴訟之當事人適格問題，允宜審慎認定，或以參加制度補裁判可能發生二歧之不足，以免造成人民權利救濟之障礙。本文係經由比較美國法制之觀點，提出以當事人是否受有實際損害及訴訟結果是否有助於當事人之救濟，作為判斷行政訴訟當事人適格要件及有無訴訟（願）實益之基準，以免囿於訴訟利益及傳統民事訴訟訴訟標的之考量，致增加人民提起行政爭訟之難度，反失行政爭訟制度設置之本旨。
Traditionally, the issue of standing is interpretive broadly today compared to the old time. Due to the new legislation of some environmental protection statutes, including Air Pollution Prevention Act § 74, Soil and Underground Water Pollution Prevention Act § 49 and Waste Cleaning Act § 72, the environmental group is able to sue the government for the enforcement of legal duties under the statutes. In addition, the Interpretation of Judicial Yuan announced the doctrine of statutory interest to enlarge the scope of people’s interest to be protected. The changing of legislation and Judicial Interpretation contributes to more administrative remedies (includingthird party) could have asserted in respect of standing issue, i.e. An injury in fact standard can be used to replace the standard of statutory interest at stake. As to the doctrine of one time judgment for those whom have same interest in civic litigation should be used more cautious in administrative litigation and can be addressed by third party to participate the litigation. This paper undertakes a comparative study between Taiwan and U.S. in respect of standing issue as well as mootness in administrative litigation. This study poses a new standard of injury in fact for judicial decision on the issue of standing in Taiwan. Also, whether the outcome of the litigation is sufficient to provide remedies for the party is stressed to c1arifyissue of standing and mootness. The judicial review of administrative action is the last resort for people to defense their right against government invasion. It is import to ease the thread hood of administrative litigation to protect the people’s right otherwise would be injured by the government without remedies.
