所謂公民訴訟，係一項當違法行為發生時，允許私人透過訴訟替代政府執行法律的機制。而什麼樣的私人可以作為執法者？此一問題的回答，仰賴對法律規範與法院判決的完整理解，但國內過往之研究著重於法條的觀察，對司法在當事人適格形塑上之角色較為忽略。本文之目的，即在透過對相關法律規範與法院判決的探索，呈現與比較美國與臺灣公民訴訟法制上當事人適格要求的真正面貌。本文認為，我國立法將重心放在公益團體的策略，值得支持，但允許一般公民提起訴訟，仍有其價值。展望未來，法院在詮釋所謂受害人民時，可考慮與一般行政訴訟之權利保護要件相區隔，承認如美國之較廣泛的受保護利益，而給予更多提起公民訴訟的可能性。

The citizen suit is a mechanism that allows private persons to enforce statutes through litigations when the violation of statutes occurs. The characteristics of the private persons allowed to be the law enforcers demand a comprehensive understanding of the relevant statues and court opinions. Because the previous studies in this area in Taiwan focus primarily on the analysis of the statues and largely overlook the role of the judiciary on shaping standing, the purpose of this article is to elucidate the complete accounts of citizen suit standing in both the United States and Taiwan and provide a comparative analysis. This article argues that while putting more weight on the public interest group is a sound policy, expanding the possibility for natural persons to file lawsuits is worthy of substantial attention; therefore, the courts should reconsider its interpretation of “aggrieved persons.” Specifically, it is suggested that courts could distinguish the concept of “aggrieved persons” in the citizen suit provisions with the requirement of rights protection in general administrative litigations, recognize broader protected interests as the U.S. courts do, and provide more opportunities for filing citizen suits.