Research on Environmental Public Interest Litigation in Taiwan

As germination and rise of public environmental awareness in Taiwan, large-scale air pollution, water pollution, noise, land subsidence and other public hazards harming human health and living environment caused by various production or consumption activities are generated. Facing the situation of environment increasingly aggravates, environmental public interest litigation system is constructed. First, Article 9 of Administrative Procedure Law stipulates public interest litigation;then ,Article 34 of Environmental Basic Law cleady stipulates important elements of public interest litigation. In the research, taking the first environmental public interest litigation in Taiwan as the example, collusion process between government and developer, and private environmental protection groups finally obtaining victory through the continuous effort and litigation are illustrated, thereby uncovering so-called ＂legal＂ saying by government and developer. Environmental maintenance and improvement is the duty of every citizen should do, but not only the duty of govemment, which is mentality of environmental public interest litigation development should have and road must take.

On the Plaintiff's Subject Qualification for Environmental Public Interest Litigation Instituted by People's Procuratorates

Although it is not the main duty for the People's Procuratorate to institute environmental public interest litigation proceedings, the existence of "reserve" prosecution right of plaintiff not only is beneficial to timely prevention and cure of environmental damage, but also contributes indispensable judicial supervision force to the environmental legality construction. In order to safeguard environmental public interests, many local prosecutorial organizations have practiced environmental public interests litigation. Since Chinese law has not made explicit stipulation on the function of the People's Procuratorate instituting environmental public interest litigation, the plaintiff's subject qualification for environmental public interest litigation instituted by the People's Procuratorate is still in question. In order to propel the People's Procuratorate to completely and fully exercise their power of supervision and prosecution, there shall be corresponding legislation that provides powerful guarantee for the People's Procuratorate instituting environmental public interest litigation.

Empirical study of the dilemma regarding preliminary proof of causality and methods used by victims in China's environmental health litigation

Environmental health incidents have occurred frequently in recent years;in China,however,litigation has not been effective in protecting the rights and interests of victims due to their heavy burden of proof.In order to mitigate the burden of proof for victims,the environmental judicature in China introduced the rule of inversion of burden of proof;this means that the victim only assumes the preliminary burden of proof,but in practice it has not been sufficient.Victims in environmental health litigation still face many difficulties in proving causality.Based on the statistical analysis of judicial big data,this paper demonstrates three dilemmas faced by victims.First,the preliminary burden of proof of causality has a high standard.Second,the victim's ability to produce evidence is low.Third,the casual relationship between pollution behaviors and health damage is difficult to identify.When examining the possible legal instruments,there are three aspects to the causes of these dilemmas:theory,judicial practice,and society.The theoretical aspect manifests as the differences between the rule of inversion of burden of proof and the presumption of causality;the practical aspect manifests as the lack of an identification system for personal injury;and the social aspect manifests as the victim's lack of economic,scientific,technological,and information resources,as well as the absence of assistance from government sectors and social organizations.Combining Chinese law with judicial practice,this paper proposes a solution to the dilemma of victims needing to prove causality in environmental health litigation.On the basis of clarifying the theoretical differences between the inversion of burden of proof and the presumption of causality,China should adhere to the rule of inversion of burden of proof,establish an identification system for personal injuries caused by environmental pollution,and use methods such as epidemiological causality,indirect counterevidence,and prima facie bewies.Furthermore,the full functions of the government and social organizations must be brought into play.This will not only help victims demonstrate causality,it can also help victims achieve equitable relief.

Selection and Optimization of Path Responding to Unexpected Environmental Incidents in China

By analyzing disposal status of unexpected environmental incidents by government,public and enterprise,and combining the characteristics of unexpected environmental incidents,specific measures of responding to unexpected environmental incidents are proposed from the aspects of perfecting guarantee system of emergency nomocracy,enhancing information disclosure,encouraging public participation,enhancing the construction of emergency response capability,and enhancing post-event management,to improve the ability of defending environmental risk.