跨界环境损害国际法律责任体系研究

发布时间：2018-04-21 20:08

本文选题：跨界环境损害 + 国家责任　；参考：《外交学院》2013年博士论文

【摘要】：随着人类社会经济文化生活的不断发展，经济全球化已经成为整个世界发展的趋势。各国联系的日益紧密使得跨界环境损害问题越来越受到当今国际社会的关注。针对这一问题，各国的实践以及相关的国际法律制度长期以来都有了长足的发展，但作为跨界环境损害国际法规则重要组成部分的国际法律责任制度却发展相对缓慢。因此，跨界环境损害的国际法律责任体系就成为一个重要的理论与现实课题。在传统的国际法上，国家责任、国家赔偿责任和国际民事责任三种责任形式并列称为国际环境损害的三种主要责任承担形式。所谓跨界环境损害的国家责任是指国家为其管辖控制下的非国家行为所造成的损害他国环境的后果所承担的责任；跨界环境损害的国家赔偿责任是指国家为国际法不加禁止的活动所产生的跨界环境损害后果承担相应的责任；而所谓跨界环境损害的国际民事责任则是指根据相关条约规定，由经营者承担的几种高危活动所导致的跨界环境损害的赔偿责任。随着人类社会的不断进步和国际法的不断发展，这一传统的法律责任制度暴露出了越来越多的问题。首先，跨界环境损害国家责任以“特雷尔冶炼厂”案为模式，但该案在程序方面存在的诸多缺陷,为后来的国际法理论界所诟病；同时将私人活动造成的损害后果归责于国家，也缺乏传统国际法实践和相关国际法理论作为支撑。“不损害他国环境”也很难作为一个国际习惯法意义上的国际义务得到国际社会的承认。跨界环境损害的国家赔偿责任主要是基于国际法委员会的“国际法不加禁止的行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任”专题而出现的。该专题历经20多年艰辛编纂，终于在2001年和2004年分别形成《预防危险活动的跨界损害条款草案》和《关于危险活动造成的跨界损害的损失分配的原则草案》两大成果。但此专题的成果并没有证明国家赔偿责任的现实性，相反却证明国家赔偿责任实际上是国家责任和国际民事责任的各种表现形式，恰恰从反面证明了跨界环境损害的国家赔偿责任的不现实性。另外传统理论上的所谓跨界环境损害的国际民事责任，，只涵盖了几种高危活动造成的损害后果的责任承担形式，显然不能代表整个跨界环境损害的国际民事责任的全部。本文认为，完善的跨界环境损害的国际法律责任制度应该具有理论的清晰性和实践的可操作性，只应包括跨界环境损害的国家责任和国际民事责任两种，他们分别构成国际公法和国际私法上的跨界环境损害责任，形成一个统一的稳定的跨界环境损害的国际法律责任体系。
[Abstract]:With the development of the social, economic and cultural life, economic globalization has become the trend of the whole world. The problem of transboundary environmental damage has been paid more and more attention by the international community. In response to this problem, the practice of various countries and the relevant international legal systems have developed rapidly for a long time, but the international legal liability system, as an important part of the rules of international law for transboundary environmental damage, has developed relatively slowly. Therefore, the system of international legal liability for transboundary environmental damage has become an important theoretical and practical issue. In the traditional international law, the three forms of responsibility, state responsibility, state liability and international civil liability are called the three main forms of responsibility for international environmental damage. The so-called State responsibility for transboundary environmental harm refers to the responsibility of the State for the consequences of damage to the environment of other States resulting from non-State acts under its jurisdiction and control; The State liability for transboundary environmental damage refers to the corresponding liability of the State for the consequences of transboundary environmental damage arising from activities not prohibited by international law, while the so-called international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage refers to the provisions of relevant treaties, Liability for transboundary environmental damage caused by several high-risk activities by the operator. With the progress of human society and the development of international law, this traditional legal liability system has exposed more and more problems. First, State responsibility for transboundary environmental damage is modelled on the Trail smelter case, but the procedural shortcomings of the case have been criticized by subsequent theorists of international law, while the consequences of damage caused by private activities are imputed to the State. Also lacks the traditional international law practice and the correlation international law theory as the support. It is also difficult to be recognized by the international community as an international obligation in the sense of international customary law. The responsibility of States for transboundary environmental harm arises primarily from the International Law Commission's topic "International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law". After more than 20 years of hard compilation, the topic finally produced two major achievements in 2001 and 2004, respectively, namely, the draft articles on the prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and the draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities. The results of this topic, however, do not prove the reality of State liability, but rather demonstrate that State liability is in fact a manifestation of State responsibility and international civil liability, It is precisely from the opposite side that the state liability for transboundary environmental damage is proved to be impractical. In addition, the traditional theory of the so-called international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage covers only the forms of liability for the consequences of damage caused by several high-risk activities, and obviously does not represent the whole international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage. This paper holds that a perfect international legal liability system for transboundary environmental damage should have theoretical clarity and practical maneuverability, and should include only two types of State liability and international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage. They constitute the liability for transboundary environmental damage in public international law and private international law respectively and form a unified and stable system of international legal liability for transboundary environmental damage.
【学位授予单位】：外交学院
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D996.9

【参考文献】