预防性环境民事公益诉讼的制度证成及法律适用
作者:
作者单位:

(河海大学法学院)

作者简介:

崇章(1995—),男,博士研究生,主要从事法律社会学及环境与资源保护法研究。E-mail:809177649@qq.com

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目(72472045);江苏省人民检察院检察理论研究课题(2024SJB35);江苏省学习贯彻党的二十大精神专题研究项目(SJZT202312)


The Institutional Proof and Legal Application of Preventive Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation
Author:
Affiliation:

(School of Law, Hohai University)

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    我国环境立法指导思想正从“事后救济”转向“事前预防”,预防性环境民事公益诉讼的确立即为具体体现。预防性环境民事公益诉讼强调风险预防而非损害救济,既补充了环境公益诉讼的预防功能,又与当下环境损害风险防范的现实需求相契合,具有正当性。鉴于预防性环境民事公益诉讼的自身特质,以救济功能为主的传统民事诉讼规制无法直接适用,制度适用时应与救济性环境民事公益诉讼在启动要件、举证规则及责任承担方式上作出区分:一是在启动要件上,预防性环境民事公益诉讼的特殊性主要体现在“重大风险”的认定方面,即“重大风险”仅限定于环境公共利益,对重大风险的认定应以法院为主、行政机关为辅,并结合损害发生的可能性、严重性和紧迫性等因素进行考量。二是在举证规则上,应区别于一般环境侵权诉讼,合理分配举证责任。三是在证明标准上,原告在诉前阶段对待证事实提供初步证明,符合表见证明的标准即可;被告则需在庭审阶段对因果关系推定作出反证,达到高度盖然性的标准。四是在责任承担方式上,应通过灵活运用禁止令制度和增设替代性责任等手段对预防性责任的承担方式进行拓展,以实现环境司法与环境行政执法的有效衔接。

    Abstract:

    The establishment of preventive environmental civil public interest litigation reflects the trend of the guiding ideology for China’s environmental legislation gradually shifting from “post relief” to “pre-prevention”. Preventive environmental civil public interest litigation emphasizes risk prevention rather than damage relief. It not only supplements the preventive function of environmental public interest litigation but also meets the practical needs of preventing environmental damage risks at present, which renders it legitimate. Given its characteristics, the traditional civil litigation regulations that focus on relief functions cannot be directly applied, and the construction of the system should distinguish it from traditional remedial environmental civil public interest litigation in terms of constituent elements, evidentiary rules, and liability bearing methods. First, the particularity of the constituent elements of preventive environmental civil public interest litigation is mainly reflected in the determination of “significant risks”. The basic object of “major risks” should be limited to environmental public interests, and the determination of major risks should be mainly based on the court and supplemented by administrative agencies, taking into account factors such as the possibility, severity, and urgency of damage occurrence. Second, in terms of evidence rules, it should be distinguished from general environmental infringement litigation, with a reasonable allocation of the burden of proof and clear standards of proof. Third, the plaintiff provides preliminary evidence of the facts to be proved in the pre-trial stage, while the defendant needs to provide counter evidence of the presumption of causality in the trial stage. Fourth, in terms of the liability bearing methods, the extension of preventive responsibility can be achieved through flexible use of the prohibition order system and the addition of alternative responsibilities, aiming to effectively connect environmental justice with environmental administrative law enforcement.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

崇章,陈广华.预防性环境民事公益诉讼的制度证成及法律适用[J].河海大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2026,28(2):119-128.(CHONG Zhang, CHEN Guanghua. The Institutional Proof and Legal Application of Preventive Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation[J]. Journal of Hohai University (Philosophy and Socail Sciences),2026,28(2):119-128.(in Chinese))

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2026-05-12
  • 出版日期: