科学给付义务视野下我国气候变化诉讼的迈进逻辑

The Logic of China’s Climate Change Litigation from the Perspective of Scientific Payment Obligations

如何构建气候变化诉讼制度,不同国家和地区形成不同经验。域外国家和地区主要延循侵权逻辑,以人权、人身权、财产权等其他权利类型作为应对气候变化问题的基点,但该构建方式并不符合我国国情。因缺乏归属效能和排除效能,气候环境利益难以实现权利化。与域外国家“一体式”诉讼结构不同,我国现已发展成“三责六诉”的格局。这种“分割式”或“多轨制”构造阻断了我们利用侵权路径救济气候环境利益的可能。不仅如此,我国在环境公益诉讼制度建构方面突破“利害关系人”的理论束缚,呈现出“去实体化”的特征,直接削弱了权利化路径的实际价值。除权利—义务这种传统证成路径之外,通过深度阐释宪法旨意而最终获取另一种可行方式,即根本任务—基本政策—国家义务。这种进路旨在改变义务的附庸地位,强调未来在气候变化应对过程中应推动“被义务”向“向义务”转型。

How to build a climate change litigation system,different countries and regions have different experiences.Countries and regions outside mainly follow the logic of infringement,taking other types of rights such as human rights,personal rights,and property rights as the basis for addressing climate change issues,but this construction method ignores China’s local national conditions.Due to the lack of attribution and exclusion effectiveness,it is difficult to realize the entitlement of climate and environmental benefits.Unlike the“one-piece”litigation structure of foreign countries,China has now developed into a pattern of“three responsibilities and six lawsuits”,and this“split”or“multi-track”structure blocks the possibility of us using infringement paths to remedy climate and environmental interests.Not only that,China has broken through the theoretical shackles of“stakeholders”in the construction of the environmental public interest litigation system,showing the characteristics of“de-materialization”,which directly weakens the actual value of the entitlement path.In addition to the traditional path of proof of rights-obligations,another feasible way is finally discovered through a deep interpretation of the purpose of the constitution,namely,the fundamental task-the basic policy-the state obligation.This approach aims to change the subordination of obligations,emphasizing that in the future,in the process of climate change response,the transition from“obligated”to“obliged”should be promoted.