[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):20-29.[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):20-29.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.01.003]
点击复制

论生态环境损害消除危险责任方式()
分享到：

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

卷:
第22卷
期数:
2021年01期
页码:
20-29
栏目:
环境法专题研究
出版日期:
2021-02-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
On the Way to Eliminate Danger Liability of Damage to Ecological Environment
作者:
李义松; 张佩钰
Author(s):
Li Yisong; Zhang Peiyu
关键词:
生态环境损害;  消除危险责任方式;  环境行政监管;  司法救济
Keywords:
damage to ecological environment;  way of danger elimination liability;  environmental administrative supervision;  judicial relief
分类号:
D922.68
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.01.003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
救济生态环境损害、保护生态环境公共权益的消除危险责任,不同于传统民法救济私主体人身财产权益的消除危险责任。实证研究表明,生态环境损害民事司法救济适用消除危险责任,存在法律依据不足、救济不及时、责任落实困难等问题。比较而言,环境行政监管手段适用消除危险责任,具有法律规定明确、救济及时、责任易于落实等优势。生态环境损害司法救济的目的是解决“政府失灵”问题,但法院不能替代政府行使监管职责。据此,我国应当完善并优先适用生态环境损害消除危险行政法律责任方式; 以环境行政公益诉讼为生态环境损害司法救济的重点; 根据实际情况探索多样化的消除危险责任承担方式; 待条件成熟后制定专门的自然保护法及损害救济法。
Abstract:
The danger elimination liability of relieving the damage to ecological environment and protecting the public interest of the ecological environment is different from that of relieving the private actor’s personal and property rights and interests in the traditional civil law. Empirical research shows that there are problems such as insufficient legal basis, untimely relief and difficulty in implementing liability in the application of civil judicial relief of ecological environmental damage to danger elimination liability. Comparatively speaking, the application of environmental administrative supervision to danger elimination liability has the advantages of clear legal provisions, timely relief and easy implementation of liability. The purpose of the judicial relief of damage to ecological environment is to solve the problem of “government failure”, but the court can not replace the government to exercise supervision duties. Accordingly, in China, the application of administrative legal liability way of ecological environmental damage and danger elimination should be improved and prioritized; the judicial relief can focus on environmental administrative public interest litigation; according to the actual situation, a variety of ways of danger elimination liability undertaking should be explored; when the conditions are mature, the special nature protection law and damage relief law should be formulatedand developed.

参考文献/References:

[1]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.
[2]廖建凯.生态损害救济,环保组织扮演什么角色?[J].环境经济,2016(Z7):95-99.
[3]刘志坚.环境监管行政责任实现不能及其成因分析[J].政法论丛,2013(5):65-70.
[4]张利娟.公务员行政伦理责任建设的路径探究[J].今日南国(理论创新版),2009(4):16-17.
[5]谭溪.我国地方环保机构垂直管理改革的思考[J].行政管理改革,2018(7):34-39.
[6]吕忠梅.环境法导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2015:257.
[7]王小钢.生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的公共信托理论阐释:自然资源国家所有和公共信托环境权益的二维构造[J].法学论坛,2018,33(6):32-38.
[8]王曦.论环境公益诉讼制度的立法顺序[J].清华法学,2016,10(6):101-114.
[9]王岚.论生态环境损害救济机制[J].社会科学,2018(6):104-111.
[10]吕忠梅.监管环境监管者:立法缺失及制度构建[J].法商研究,2009,26(5):139-145.
[11]原野.反思我国占补平衡制度:以德国自然保护法中的占补规则为参考[C]//江苏省法学会环境资源法学研究会2019年年会论文集.南京:南京财经大学,2019:109.
[12]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.
[13]巩固,陈瑶.以禁令制度弥补环境公益诉讼民事责任之不足:美国经验的启示与借鉴[J].河南财经政法大学学报,2017,32(4):46-56.
[14]吴其亮.环境司法保护的贵阳模式[J].决策,2014(10):58-59.
[15]王秀卫.论生态环境损害侵权责任的立法进路:《民法典侵权责任编(草案)》(二次审议稿)第七章存在的问题及解决[J].中国海商法研究,2019,30(2):3-9.

相似文献/References:

[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.[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.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.01.003]

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; 张佩钰,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); 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: 2021-02-20