论抽象主观证明责任在环境侵权诉讼中的功能与应用——以因果关系事实的鉴定义务分配为中心

On the Function and Application of Abstract Subjective Burden of Proof in Environmental Tort Litigation——On the Distribution of The Responsibility of the Identification of Causal Elements

在我国环境侵权诉讼中,法官对于因果关系鉴定义务的分配存在严重分歧。由于鉴定义务分配属于抽象之主观证明责任的功能范畴,故而解决分歧的关键在于,要明确现行法上因果关系要件之抽象的主观证明责任是如何分配的。尽管《环境侵权若干问题解释》第6条规定,被侵权人应就污染物质与损害之间的关联性举证证明,但《侵权责任法》第66条已将因果关系要件的客观证明责任分配给了侵权人,考虑到抽象之主观证明责任的分配与客观证明责任始终保持一致,且为维护法律规范之间的兼容性,这里的"关联性"只能被解读为污染与损害在空间与时间上的牵连性,而并不涉及因果关系的内容。

In China＇s environmental tort litigation, there are serious differences for the allocation of the causal relationship between the identification obligation. Because the function of category identification obligation distribution belongs to the abstract subjective proof responsibility, the key to resolve differences is to clear the existing law of causality to the abstract subjective burden of proof of allocation. The sixth article of ＂the interpretation of several problems on environmental tort＂ provises, the Victim shall be proof of relationship between the pollution and the damage proof,but sixty-sixth of ＂tort liability law＂ has assigned the objective burden of proof of causality elements to the Offender, taking into account the distribution and customer subjective proof Abstract responsibility. The concept of burden of proof has always been consistent, and to maintain the compatibility between legal norms, the ＂relevance＂ can be interpreted as the pollution and damage in space and time on the implications, not involving causal relationship.