环境权利的可诉性研究
发布时间：2018-07-14 13:07
【摘要】：环境损害是环境权利受到侵害的一种形态,环境侵权不能涵盖环境损害。通过私法和环境公益诉讼无法实现环境权利损害的充分救济。环境权利司法救济缺乏法律依据,缺乏权利依据,在宪法和法律未对环境权利及其可诉性做出明确规定的情况下,权利主体缺乏可以直接寻求司法救济的可要求性,只规定了相应的义务而不能提出要求的权利更像是受到规范确认和保护的利益而不是一种完善的权利。因此,承认环境权利的可诉性对于环境权利的保护具有至关重要的意义。应从权利本身出发研究环境权利的可诉性,从权利人的立场重新思考环境权利的可诉性问题,转变可诉性问题的思维模式,改变环境权利可诉性的研究视角,从环境权利可诉性的概念化争论转向环境权利如何裁判这一新任务。 环境权利与环境权的区别是：环境权是人享用一定品质的生态功能的天赋权利；而环境权利则是规定或隐含在法律规范中的环境权,是法律权利。环境权利是规定或隐含在法律规范中的自然人享用适宜生态功能的概括性权利。环境权利的利益基础是生态利益,公民依据环境权利可以要求国家采取积极行为履行国家环境义务。环境权利可能以宪法权利,也可能以普通法律权利的面目出现。环境权利作为一项宪法权利,同样具备主观权利和客观法的双重性质,具备权能复合结构。具体环境权利具有公法和私法的双重性质。 环境权利的法律化,即环境权利从应有权利向法定权利的转化,这一过程面临理论和现实双重困境。环境权入宪具有价值合理性和现实必要性。只有建立完善的权利救济机制才可能真正实现法定权利。在环境权利实现屡临困境的情况下,一些国家的宪政实践通过修宪或制定新宪法赋予环境权利可诉性,或通过法院对基本权利条款的解释使环境权利获得一定程度的可诉性。在环境权利实现屡临困境的情况下,一些国家的宪政实践通过修宪或制定新宪法赋予环境权利可诉性,或通过法院对基本权利条款的解释使环境权利获得一定程度的可诉性。代表性的国家有南非、印度、美国等。 对环境权利不可诉论的剖析包括：对“权利二分法”的进一步质疑,对“权利成本”的批判,对权利一体化与环境权利间接救济的意义的分析。对环境权利可诉性的争论包括环境权利规范的模糊性、环境权利可诉的民主正当性缺乏、环境司法能力的制约。从环境权利可诉的政治合法性的解析与重塑,环境权利规范模糊性的破解,环境司法能力的突破三个方面论证环境权利的可诉性。 环境权利可诉是有限的。具有主观权利属性的环境权利可诉,单纯表现为客观法的环境权利不可诉；规则规范明确具有可诉性的环境权利可诉,表现为原则规范的环境权利不可诉；指向可以分割的个人生态利益的环境权利可诉；而不可分割的生态公益主要由国家承担客观义务,通常情况下不可诉。环境权利可诉范围是发展的,随权利保护的现实需求发生相应的变化,在主观属性与客观属性相互渗透的过程中,环境权利的内涵被不断扩大,并且被不断的规范化,这一扩大和规范化过程的结果就是权利的可诉范围的不断扩大。环境权利的可诉受到客观现实的限制,依据宪法中直接做了绝对性规定的条款,环境权利的可诉范围不受限制,普通法律规定的环境权利的可诉范围明确。不同层次的环境义务对应的环境权利的可诉性呈逐层递减态势。尊重义务对应的环境权利完全可诉。保护义务对应的环境权利部分可诉。给付义务包括抽象和具体两部分内容。抽象部分普遍认为不可诉。现代宪法逐渐承认给付义务的具体部分义务对应的环境权利部分可诉。司法保护不是环境权利保护的唯一有效方式,环境权利需要其他方式的保护。宪法诉讼是环境权利可诉实现的根本路径。通过普通法律实现环境权利的可诉性在很多国家具有现实的可操作性,一是通过行政法实现环境权利可诉,二是通过私法实现环境权利可诉,环境公益诉讼是增强环境权利可诉性的有效措施。 中国环境权利可诉实现的现状表现为：环境权利纠纷解决的诉讼渠道不畅,私权救济方式对环境权利损害救济不足,环境公益诉讼屡陷困境。究其原因,既有因政治问题不可诉形成的政治难点,也有因环境权利立法缺失、宪法司法化不能、两个层次的环境权利可诉障碍和环境公益诉讼立法不足所形成的法律难点。随着可诉性理论的成熟,将国家行为混同于政治问题的困境将逐渐化解,政治问题的司法化范围将随之扩大。破解中国环境权利可诉实现的法律难点需要立法理念的提升。在制度设计上,宪法诉讼是中国环境权利可诉实现的根本路径,应通过行政法路径积极推动环境权利的宪法诉讼,同时通过私法有限度的实现环境权利的可诉,完善环境公益诉讼制度,通过环境司法专门化提高环境司法能力。
[Abstract]:Environmental damage is a form of infringement of environmental rights . Environmental infringement cannot cover environmental damage . In the absence of legal basis , lack of legal basis , lack of legal basis , lack of legal basis , and lack of right to claim the right of environmental rights .
The difference between environmental rights and environmental rights is that the environmental right is the natural right to enjoy a certain quality of ecological function ;
The environmental right is the legal right . The environmental right is the general right to stipulate or imply the proper ecological function of the natural person in the legal norm . The benefit basis of the environmental right is the ecological benefit , and the citizen can ask the country to take the positive action to carry out the national environmental obligation . The environmental right may be the constitutional right and the dual nature of the objective law , and has the property rights composite structure . The specific environmental rights have the dual nature of public law and private law .
The law of environmental rights , that is , the transformation of environmental rights from the right to the legal right , is faced with the double dilemma of theory and reality .
The analysis of the non - actionable theory of environmental rights includes the further questioning of the rights dichotomy , the criticism of the " right cost " , the analysis of the meaning of the indirect relief of the rights integration and the environmental rights .
Environmental right is limited . The environmental right with subjective right attribute can be sued , and the environmental right which is purely represented as objective law is not actionable ;
The rules and regulations clearly have actionable environmental rights which are actionable , and the environmental rights which manifest as the principle norm are not actionable ;
Environmental rights that point to the individual ecological interests that can be divided ;
The environmental right is limited by objective reality , the scope of environmental rights is not limited , the scope of environmental rights is not limited , the scope of environmental rights is not limited , and the right of environmental right needs to be protected . The legal protection is not the only effective way to protect the environmental rights . The legal protection is not the only effective way to protect the environmental rights .
The current situation of the realization of China ' s environmental rights litigation is that the litigation channel settled by environmental rights dispute is not smooth , the remedy of private right is not enough to remedy the environmental rights harm and the environmental public welfare lawsuit is in trouble .
【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.68;D923
本文编号：2121746
[Abstract]:Environmental damage is a form of infringement of environmental rights . Environmental infringement cannot cover environmental damage . In the absence of legal basis , lack of legal basis , lack of legal basis , lack of legal basis , and lack of right to claim the right of environmental rights .
The difference between environmental rights and environmental rights is that the environmental right is the natural right to enjoy a certain quality of ecological function ;
The environmental right is the legal right . The environmental right is the general right to stipulate or imply the proper ecological function of the natural person in the legal norm . The benefit basis of the environmental right is the ecological benefit , and the citizen can ask the country to take the positive action to carry out the national environmental obligation . The environmental right may be the constitutional right and the dual nature of the objective law , and has the property rights composite structure . The specific environmental rights have the dual nature of public law and private law .
The law of environmental rights , that is , the transformation of environmental rights from the right to the legal right , is faced with the double dilemma of theory and reality .
The analysis of the non - actionable theory of environmental rights includes the further questioning of the rights dichotomy , the criticism of the " right cost " , the analysis of the meaning of the indirect relief of the rights integration and the environmental rights .
Environmental right is limited . The environmental right with subjective right attribute can be sued , and the environmental right which is purely represented as objective law is not actionable ;
The rules and regulations clearly have actionable environmental rights which are actionable , and the environmental rights which manifest as the principle norm are not actionable ;
Environmental rights that point to the individual ecological interests that can be divided ;
The environmental right is limited by objective reality , the scope of environmental rights is not limited , the scope of environmental rights is not limited , the scope of environmental rights is not limited , and the right of environmental right needs to be protected . The legal protection is not the only effective way to protect the environmental rights . The legal protection is not the only effective way to protect the environmental rights .
The current situation of the realization of China ' s environmental rights litigation is that the litigation channel settled by environmental rights dispute is not smooth , the remedy of private right is not enough to remedy the environmental rights harm and the environmental public welfare lawsuit is in trouble .
【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.68;D923
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 王灿发;程多威;;新《环境保护法》规范下环境公益诉讼制度的构建[J];环境保护;2014年10期
2 陈海嵩;;宪法环境权的功能体系——兼论环境法学研究的“解释论”转换[J];社会科学辑刊;2013年06期
3 陈承堂;;可诉性理论适用的中国困境及其消解——以美国的相关经验为借鉴[J];政治与法律;2013年10期
4 杜涛;;在政治与法律之间——气候变化诉讼中的政治问题理论[J];北方法学;2013年05期
5 杨朝霞;;论环境公益诉讼的权利基础和起诉顺位——兼谈自然资源物权和环境权的理论要点[J];法学论坛;2013年03期
6 秦前红;涂云新;;经济、社会、文化权利的保障路径及其选择——在立法裁量与司法救济之间[J];交大法学;2013年01期
7 李挚萍;;外国环境司法专门化的经验及挑战[J];法学杂志;2012年11期
8 秦前红;涂云新;;经济、社会、文化权利的可司法性研究——从比较宪法的视角介入[J];法学评论;2012年04期
9 刘超;;擎制与突围:法院受理环境公益诉讼案件动力机制的缺陷与重塑[J];河北法学;2012年06期
10 钭晓东;;论环境法律责任机制的重整[J];法学评论;2012年01期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 付健;我国环境纠纷非诉调解机制研究[D];武汉大学;2011年
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 李修棋;环境权制度化的困境及其出路[D];中国政法大学;2003年
，本文编号：2121746
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/huanjingziyuanfa/2121746.html
