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.

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.

National Environmental Policy Act of the United States and Its Application in Climate Litigation——Evaluating Litigation Case by Friends of the Earth on Export-Import Bank of the United States and Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Because that American government and congress hold a negative attitude on responding to climate change issue, people transfer the battle stage of climate change to the court,and hope to promote government and large energy companies actively responding to climate change issue via litigation form. A large amount of related litigation appears,and a kind of special litigation type is gradually formed, namely climate change litigation. National Environmental Policy Act of the United States is one of important legal weapons used by prosecutor in climate change litigation. In National Environmental Policy Act, it stipulates environmental impact evaluation system which has close relationship with climate change litigation. The system requires that federal agency ＂ should compile detailed environmental impact report （EIS） on major federal action which significantly affects human survival environment quality＂. Litigation case of Export - Import Bank of the United States and Overseas Private Investment Corporation by Fdends of the Earth, Green Peace, Boulder City, etc. is typical one related to the act. We try to evaluate and analyze text and case of the act.

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.

Discussion of China's Environmental Public Interest Litigation System

This paper, through research on the status quo of China's environmental public interest litigation and seizing the opportunity that the Law of Civil Procedure has first clearly defined public interest litigation, focuses on analysis of present difficulties and institutional dilemma related to the environmental public interest litigation in China and involves some useful discussions of main subject scope, burden of proof, funds guarantee and stopping infringement before litigation etc.

Analysis on Ecological Personality Right--In the Perspective of Environmental Personality Right

This essay focuses on expanding the traditional theory of personality right and referring to the outside legislative cases in order to promote environmental information disclosure,the purpose,therefore is to realize the ecological personality right.

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.

Experts in Natural Resource Damages and Toxic Tort Litigation

Expert testimony plays a critical role in environmental and toxic tort litigation [1]. While most litigation settles, the work of an expert should, from the outset, be prepared with trial in mind. First and foremost, an expert, using the appropriate expertise, must be able to resolve questions that will assist the trier of fact in making determinations necessary under the law applicable to the case. In addition, an expert must demonstrate a solid scientific foundation in all of his or her opinions. Once armed with the opinions reached in the case, the forensic expert should work with the trial team to simplify proof, clarify the presentation and integrate it with other trial proof and themes [2]. This effort should include the realistic identification of any perceived or real shortcomings regarding the information available, the approach taken by or conclusions reached by the expert. Ongoing communication between the trial team and the expert throughout the discovery and pre-trial litigation is essential.

THE OPTIMIZATION PATH OF THE DISCRETIONARY REQUIREMENTS OF CHINA'S ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION INJUNCTION

The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that the construction of ecological civilization is a millennium plan for the sustainable development of the Chinese nation.Constructing ecological civilization and adhering to green development is the basic strategy of adhering to and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era.In the litigation system of China,it is the behavior preservation system that corresponds to the litigation injunction.In civil litigation,the main legal basis for the preservation of civil action is the part on the preservation of acts in the provisions of article 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,which refers to the obstacles to the performance of future judgments or the further infringement caused to the parties.The court shall,on the application of a party or in accordance with its authority,order the other party to make certain acts or prohibit certain acts.The injunction of environmental litigation is an important preventive measure to give full play to the concept of plain environmental justice.

专门生态环境诉讼制度的法典构造

生态环境纠纷解决是生态文明建设的重要内容,也是环境法典编纂需要考量的重要问题。在环境法典中,有必要根据生态环境责任的特殊性需求、生态环境诉讼的功能承载需求、环境司法的发展需求,系统规定专门生态环境诉讼制度。该制度秉承可持续发展观,充分考量生态环境诉讼理论的新发展和环境司法改革的实践成果,发挥生态环境诉讼制度定分止争、权利维护和公共政策实施的功能。具体而言,专门生态环境诉讼制度的法典构造应遵循能动司法与合作司法运行理念,按照环境司法机构专门化、审理程序综合化、审判制度系统化、公益救济合作化的要求建构。在规则层面,着重考量不同环境诉讼之间的衔接、专门司法机构设置、管辖机制的优化、“多审合一”的实质化、专门证据规则的制定、替代性修复规则的明确、预防性环境公益诉讼的确定、执行合作机制的确立等。

论风险预防原则在环境司法适用中的谦抑性

风险预防原则在当下环境法中的司法适用,游走在能动与谦抑之间,且呈现出过度能动倾向。“谦抑性”是对风险预防原则适用“分寸”之理论回应,其法理基础可从风险预防原则的规范基础、固有局限以及司法属性等层面予以诠释。风险预防原则在环境法中适用的谦抑性可被解构为“补充性”“有限性”“温和性”和“内敛性”四要素,由此推理出风险预防原则在环境司法中谦抑性适用的制度框架:在实体上,应促成风险预防原则在环境法典上的体现,只有在对照生态环境风险标准的前提下存在科学不确定性时,方能动用风险预防原则,其适用遵循整体温和的类型化理路。在程序上,诉讼推进阶段下的司法适用应严守职权探知界限,配置阶段化举证责任和类型化的诉前程序;案件裁判阶段下的司法适用不得超出认定事实范围,同时应对援引的风险预防原则附加适用理由。

行政执法视角下的环境民事公益诉讼时效设定——对美国环境公民诉讼时效的借鉴

环境民事公益诉讼属于公法诉讼,有别于民事私益诉讼,然而现有环境民事公益诉讼时效制度在理论探讨与司法实践中仍沿用民事诉讼时效的框架或规定,无助于解决该制度面临的困境。环境民事公益诉讼是为解决行政失灵应运而生,应回归到公法制度下考察。本文认为,环境民事公益诉讼与环境行政执法之间的制度架构共通,救济手段可相互替代,同美国环境公民诉讼与环保署执法行动间的关系类似。因此,可考察和借鉴美国环境公民诉讼适用行政执法时效的制度规范与实践,通过内部体系与外部体系的考量,证明环境民事公益诉讼适用行政处罚时效的优越性,并依据环境民事公益诉讼的特性和行政处罚时效的规定,完善环境民事公益诉讼时效制度的期间长度、起算点、终止以及延长规则。

论湿地保护领域中的预防性环境行政公益诉讼

传统的湿地保护模式具有“行政执法人员的机会主义”“多元规制机构的协调难题”“持续性的运行成本支出”等相对劣势。为实现对于湿地生态的全过程保护,督促湿地行政主管部门积极履职,有必要将预防性环境行政公益诉讼纳入湿地保护体系。应通过立法或司法解释,明确预防性环境行政公益诉讼的提起范围、提出时机和诉讼程序。

论环境民事公益诉讼中因果关系要件的证明

当前,环境民事公益诉讼中因果关系要件的证明责任如何分配及其证明标准如何设定,对此理论界和实务界仍有很大争议。在证明责任分配问题上,解决路径在于参照适用《民法典》第一千二百三十条的规定,由被告承担环境民事公益诉讼中因果关系要件的客观证明责任。与此同时,原告需提供能够证明关联性事实的初步证据。这一规则应当理解为因果关系的法律推定。将因果关系法律推定规则引入环境民事公益诉讼中具有合理性基础,如纠正人们对环境侵权因果关系要件“证明责任倒置”的错误认识、防止原告滥用诉权、平衡原被告双方的举证负担。在证明标准问题上,环境民事公益诉讼中因果关系要件的证明标准应因事后救济性环境民事公益诉讼和预防性环境民事公益诉讼的类型划分而有所区别,且受关联性事实认定标准的影响。

环境刑事附带民事公益诉讼审理顺序的反思与优化

环境刑事附带民事公益诉讼的审理顺序既对生态环境的修复效果有着直接影响,又关涉被告人刑民责任的协同确定,是完善公益诉讼制度必须关注的重要问题。遗憾的是,由于我国立法尚未对此类案件的审理顺序作出明确规定,各地法院在探索过程中做法不一,有“先刑后民”的,有“刑民并进”的,严重影响了司法的规范性。为保障实现修复生态环境、协同刑民责任等多元化诉讼目的,人民法院在审理该类案件时,应遵循刑事惩罚与生态环境修复相结合的基本理念,采用“刑—民—刑”为主、“先刑后民”为辅的审理模式,并通过强化判决说理性对“刑—民—刑”模式可能带来的风险进行防范。此外,还应正确看待和解与调解对审理顺序的影响,一旦发现对和解协议或调解协议的公告可能影响刑事诉讼的顺利进行,应及时调整审理顺序,先行作出刑事裁判。

论环境领域刑事诉权与民事公益诉权的协调

严重的环境损害行为是刑事诉权和民事公益诉权共同的适用对象,但我国立法并未明确规定两诉权同时行使时的关系如何处理,实践中呈现出环境民事公益诉讼附从于刑事诉讼,后者却疏离前者的现象。这是由于环境民事公益诉讼在客体范围、主体资格、诉求实现方面,与刑事诉权具有高度的亲缘性,但在办案时限、诉权成本、财产刑执行方面又与刑事诉权不相协调。因此,应当在立足两诉权适用对象具有同一性的基础上,以优先修复受损的生态环境为导向,在刑事办案过程中实行公益损害审查的法定化模式,从批捕或介入侦查环节开始即可启动民事公益诉权,遵循“附带为原则,不附带为例外”的要求,与法院的审判权良性互动,实现两诉权的有效协调。

论自然资源国家所有权损害赔偿制度

自然资源国家所有权的规定在《中华人民共和国宪法》《中华人民共和国民法典》,以及自然资源各单行法中都有体现,是构成自然资源国家所有权损害赔偿的法益基础。《中华人民共和国种子法》《中华人民共和国畜牧法》等条款中规定国家对自然资源享有主权,主权当然应包括所有权的内容。因自然资源种类差异,在其国家所有权受损时赔偿救济规范和结果不尽相同。因自然资源国家所有权的传统行政、民事、刑事等救济方面均存在不足,环境公益诉讼又不足以涵盖自然资源国家所有权损害救济的范围。需从山水林田湖草沙系统化治理的角度,对自然资源国家所有权兼具公私属性予以认识,并进行相关利益衡平考量。对于自然资源国家所有权损害提起生态环境损害赔偿已有规定,并出现了一批相关司法案例。生态环境损害赔偿制度体现和公权和私权的结合,海洋自然资源和生态损害公益诉讼奠定了基调,自然资源国家所有权损害可直接适用生态环境损害赔偿制度。在适用生态环境损害赔偿诉讼程序时可与环境公益诉讼合并审理,有利于节约立法、执法和司法成本,是最优选。

论“环境执法非诉执行类”检察行政公益诉讼的反思与优化

负有环境资源监督管理职责的主管部门对其生效的行政决定怠于向人民法院申请强制执行,检察机关在诉前程序无果的情形下向人民法院提起的检察行政公益诉讼虽“于法有据”,但司法实践案例中呈现出的“诉讼的耗时性与环境公益保护的紧迫性存在冲突”“检察机关的胜诉对生效行政决定的执行仅有间接影响”以及“挤占虚耗司法资源”等问题却一再表明,对“怠于申请非诉执行的行为”不加区分地提起检察行政公益诉讼欠缺合理性。“环境执法非诉执行类”检察行政公益诉讼的泛化适用,既是对检察机关“全链条式”监督理念的误用,也是对检察行政公益诉讼“有限监督原则”的违背,还与行政诉讼之“诉的利益理论”存在冲突,建议将“环境执法非诉执行类”检察行政公益诉讼区分为履行职责类诉讼与确认违法类诉讼,对于前者国家可通过立法直接赋予检察机关强制执行申请权的方式予以“赋权替代”,对于后者检察机关可通过提起确认违法类诉讼对生态环境和资源保护主管部门怠于履职行为的违法性予以“宣示”,实现“环境执法非诉执行类”检察行政公益诉讼的区分构造。

“蓝碳”在环境公益诉讼中的规范化适用

“蓝碳”在中国环境公益诉讼中实则有着诉讼缘由、保护法益、责任承担方式这3种不同的角色与定位,应给予不同的规范化建议。应明晰“蓝碳”行政监管机制、明确将“蓝碳”纳入环境行政公益诉讼受案范围;转变环境司法范式,开启“蓝碳”环境司法机制,保护“蓝碳”法益;从适用范围、条件、程序等方面来规范作为责任承担方式的“蓝碳”。

司法保障视域下实现“双碳”目标的司法与行政协同机制

“双碳”目标已被纳入我国生态文明建设整体布局之中。为如期实现“双碳”目标,必须要有法治化的保障,需要立法、行政、司法等多途径的共同推进与协同发力。当前,我国气候变化应对、碳排放控制相关立法尚不健全且进展缓慢,仍由各类政策及行政措施起主导性作用。在这种情况下,需要充分发挥司法保障机制的作用。从司法保障生态文明建设及其系统性视角,我国司法实践正积极探索司法与行政协同联动机制。为推进“双碳”目标和突破气候诉讼现有局限,还需要在该领域进一步拓展司法与行政协同机制的探索,开展直接针对气候变化法律、政策和事实等问题的诉讼,构建“碳排放影响评价”检察气候行政公益诉讼,探索行政机关作为原告的气候变化生态环境损害赔偿诉讼,并在这些新型诉讼中丰富司法与行政协同机制内涵。