跨国环境侵权民事诉讼全球法律框架下的原则和基石

Principles and Building Blocks for a Global Legal Framework for Transnational Civil Litigation in Environmental Matters

工商业活动对自然环境和地球气候的影响日益增强,引发了新的全球规范性秩序,给企业带来了挑战。联合国(UN) 2030议程指出:改变我们的世界,结合鲁杰原则,经济合作与发展组织准则,联合国全球契约以及其他最新文书,都有助于加强企业对可持续发展的责任。除了本国境内公司的责任,其境外子公司的责任同样至关重要。虽然环境法条约一般为各国制定(长期)行动方针,但它们通常不直接涉及私营行为者的行为。然而,企业的作用至关重要。在这种背景下,国家法院的民事诉讼对于界定和执行跨国公司责任具有至关重要的意义。起初,在美利坚合众国(美国)提起诉讼似乎是一条很有前途的道路,但最近美国最高法院的判决大大提高了这类诉讼的管辖权门槛;不方便法院(FNC)给诉讼增加了额外的难度。相比之下,在欧洲,《布鲁塞尔条例I》(修正案)规定,公司的住所是基于侵权的环境行为的一般管辖地,排除了不方便法院原则。尽管该法规将其留给国内法来确定设在欧盟(EU)的母公司可能因其在欧盟以外的子公司造成的环境损害索赔而被起诉为主要被告,但最近英国和荷兰法院判决表明,相比在美国提起联合诉讼,欧盟也许是对母、子公司的提起联合诉讼更好的地方。

Increasing awareness of industrial and commercial activity＇ s impact on the natural environment and the planet＇ s climate is giving rise to a new global normative order that poses challenges to business. The United Na- tions （UN） 2030 Agenda ： Transforming Our World, combined with the Ruggie Principles, the Organisation for Eco- nomic Co-operation and Development guidelines, the UN Global Compact, and other recent instruments all con-trib- ute to reinforcing corporate responsibility for sustainable development. At stake is companies＇ responsibility not just for their own operations but also for those of their subsidiaries abroad. While environ mental law treaties generally es- tablish （long-term） courses of action for States, they usually do not directly address the conduct of private actors. Yet the role of business is crucial. Against this background, civil litigation in national courts is of critical importance to define and enforce transnational corporate responsibility. Initially, litigating in the United States of America （USA） seemed to be a promising route, but recent Supreme Court of the United States decisions have raised consid- erably the jurisdictional threshold for such proceedings ; the application of forum non eonveniens （FNC） poses addi- tional hurdles. By contrast, in Europe, the Brussels I （recast） Regulation offers the company＇s domicile as a gener- al ground of jurisdiction in tort-based environ mental actions, excluding FNC. Although the Regulation leaves it to national law to determine whether a parent company based in the European Union （EU） may be sued as an anchor defendant for claims for environmental damage caused by its subsidiary based outside the EU, recent court decisions in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands suggest that the EU may become a more promising arena for such joint proceedings against parent and subsidiary than the USA.