[1]李义松,刘丽鸿.我国生态环境损害修复责任方式司法适用的实证分析[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2020,21(01):20-30.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.01.003]
　Li Yisong,Liu Lihong.An Empirical Analysis of the Judicial Application of the Responsibility Mode of the Rehabilitation of Eco-Environmental Damages in China[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2020,21(01):20-30.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.01.003]
点击复制

我国生态环境损害修复责任方式司法适用的实证分析()
分享到：

常州大学学报(社会科学版)[ISSN:2095-042X/CN:32-1821/C]

卷:
第21卷
期数:
2020年01期
页码:
20-30
栏目:
政治·法学研究
出版日期:
2020-03-10

文章信息/Info

Title:
An Empirical Analysis of the Judicial Application of the Responsibility Mode of the Rehabilitation of Eco-Environmental Damages in China
作者:
李义松; 刘丽鸿
Author(s):
Li Yisong; Liu Lihong
关键词:
生态环境损害;  修复责任;  恢复原状;  环境行政监管
Keywords:
eco-environmental damages;  rehabilitation liability;  restoration to the original state;  environmental administrative supervision
分类号:
D922.68
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.01.003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
最高法院曾在2015年1月7日起施行的《关于审理环境民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中沿用了传统民法的“恢复原状”责任方式,但在2019年6月5日起施行的《关于审理生态环境损害赔偿案件的若干规定(试行)》中却用“修复生态环境”替代了“恢复原状”并置于责任方式首位,这一举措具有重要意义,但也反映了诸多问题。从环境民事公益诉讼到生态环境损害赔偿诉讼,各地法院在判决书中或用“恢复原状”或用“修复”责任方式的概念。对二者的认识模糊不清、概念使用混乱,导致生态环境损害司法救济效果不佳。通过实证研究,发现司法实践中修复责任方式存在适用不规范、具体措施不明、缺乏可操作性且责任落实困难等问题。基于成因分析,建议制定专门的自然损害救济法、优先适用修复责任,根据不同情况类型化适用、完善环境行政执法责任并通过司法督促行政机关履行环境监管职责。
Abstract:
In the Interpretation of Several Questions Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases, which came into effect on January 7, 2015, the Supreme Court follows the traditional civil law of “restoration to the original state”responsibility. However, in the Several Provisions on the Trial of Compensation Cases for Damage to the Ecological Environment(Trial Implementation) implemented on June 5, 2019, “rehabilitation of the ecological environment”replaces“restoration to the original state” and it is put in the first place of responsibility, which is of great significance, but reflects many problems.From environmental civil public interest litigation to eco-environmental damage compensation litigation, local courts either use “restoration” or “rehabilitation” in the judgment.The fuzzy understanding and misuse of concepts lead to the poor judicial relief effects of eco-environmental damages. Through empirical research,it is found that in judicial practices,there exist problems of the rehabilitation liability such as non-standard application, unspecific measures, lack of operability and difficulties in the implementation of responsibility. Based on the analysis of the causes, it is suggested to formulate a special natural damage relief law, give priority to the application of repair responsibility, apply it according to different circumstances, improve the responsibility of environmental administrative law enforcement and supervise the administrative organs to fulfill the environmental supervision responsibility through justice.

参考文献/References:

[1] 李义松,苏胜利.环境公益诉讼的制度生成研究——以近年几起环境公益诉讼案为例展开[J].中国软科学,2011(4):88-96.
[2] 李挚萍.生态环境修复责任法律性质辨析[J]. 中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2018,18(2):48-59.
[3] 李博伦,宁清同.生态修复与恢复原状的比较分析[J]. 山西省政法管理干部学院学报,2019,32(1):1-4.
[4] 张梓太,李晨光.生态环境损害赔偿中的恢复责任分析——从技术到法律[J]. 南京大学学报(哲学·人文科学·社会科学),2018,55(4):47-54.
[5] 胡卫.民法中恢复原状的生态化表达与调适[J].政法论丛,2017(3):51-59.
[6] 杨芃,宁清同.民法典编纂中的生态修复责任探讨[J]. 治理现代化研究,2018(5):90-96.
[7] 辛帅.不可能的任务——环境损害民事救济的局限性[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2015.
[8] 张宝.生态环境损害政府索赔权与监管权的适用关系辨析[J].法学论坛,2017,32(3):14-21.
[9] 颜诚毅,颜运秋.生态环境司法中的利益平衡机理[J]. 常州大学学报(社会科学版),2018,19(1):3-11.
[10]周伟.地方政府生态环境监管:困境阐述与消解路径[J].青海社会科学,2019(1):38-44.
[11] 文丰安.70年来我国生态文明建设的历史流变及发展进路[J]. 重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版),2019,31(6):8-16.
[12] 王永贵.生态环境修复应以区域生态功能恢复为目标[N]. 检察日报,2019-10-15(3).
[13] 吕忠梅,窦海阳.修复生态环境责任的实证解析[J].法学研究,2017,39(3):125-142.
[14] 王小钢.生态环境修复和替代性修复的概念辨正——基于生态环境恢复的目标[J].南京工业大学学报(社会科学版),2019,18(1):35-43.
[15] 桑华.“责令限期恢复原状”行政处罚的实施困境与解决对策[J]. 西南林业大学学报(社会科学),2018,2(2):43-46.
[16] 陶建国.德国环境行政公益诉讼制度及其对我国的启示[J].德国研究,2013,28(2):68-79.
[17] 李义松,王亚男.论环境公益诉讼的司法推进——基于能动司法的视角[J].江海学刊,2011(1):222-227.

相似文献/References:

[1]李义松,张佩钰.论生态环境损害消除危险责任方式[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2021,22(01):20.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.01.003]
　Li Yisong,Zhang Peiyu.On the Way to Eliminate Danger Liability of Damage to Ecological Environment[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2021,22(01):20.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.01.003]
[2]赵美珍,蒋茹.环境侵权视域中修复责任之解构——兼议《民法典》第一千二百三十四条[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2021,22(01):30.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.01.004]
　Zhao Meizhen,Jiang Ru.Deconstruction of Restoration Liability from the Perspective of Environmental Tort: A Discussion on Article 1234 of Civil Code[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2021,22(01):30.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.01.004]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
作者简介:李义松,法学博士,河海大学法学院教授、博士研究生导师; 刘丽鸿,常州大学史良法学院硕士研究生。
基金项目:江苏省社会科学基金重点项目“地方环境立法理论与实践研究”(19FXA002); 2018年江苏省研究生科研创新计划项目“《江苏省环境保护条例》企业守法立法后评估研究”(KYCX18_2644); 南京市法学会招标课题“生态环境损害赔偿多样化责任机制研究”(NJFX〔2018〕ZB03)。
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-03-10