中国与世界,环境危机大家谈

china and the world discuss the environment

  • linkedin group
  • sini weibo
  • facebook
  • twitter
envelope

注册订阅每周免费邮件
Sign up for email updates


文章 Articles

Books: scaling legal barriers

Zhang Yan

Wang Jin

Readinch

Wang Jin and Zhang Yan delve into a volume in which Chinese and American scholars explore the intricacies of environmental public-interest litigation in their countries. What route can China take?

Environmental Public-Interest Litigation: A China-US Comparison
Lu Zhongmei and Alex Wang (editors)
Law Press, 2009


Traditionally, only those directly affected by a situation could bring environmental litigation in China. However, the law clearly allows for “any person” to bring a case in the public interest, making this one of the key means for people to participate in the enforcement of environmental law.

Environmental Public-interest Litigation: A China-US Comparison examines the issues surrounding this topic. The book is the result of a partnership between the Environmental Resources Law Institute at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law and the China project of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in the United States. Edited by professor Lu Zhongmei and Alex Wang, director of the NRDC’s China Environmental Law Project, the book gathers 19 articles, seven by Chinese academics and 12 by American scholars.

The Chinese-written articles start with the theoretical core of the environmental public-interest litigation system, exploring its nature, function and value, along with legal issues of competence, objects and process.

Lu reviews existing Chinese research on the nature, plaintiffs and objects of environmental public-interest litigation, while Cheng Hongbo looks at the function of litigation, an issue on which research is relatively weak, as part of a targeted analysis of the system. Song Xiaodan introduces and evaluates the two current views of improvement and reform. Huang Zhongxian avoids the more frequently researched fields to analyse and discuss the motives for environmental public-interest legislation.

Zhao Lixin, Liu Chao and Rao Zhongxiang examine actual research issues, including ideas for assistance for public plaintiffs, identifying the competences of prosecutorial authorities and the practicalities of the litigation process.

Meanwhile, the American-written pieces are more focused on competences, with case studies used to demonstrate how environmental public-interest litigation has developed and now operates in the United States. The papers introduce and explore four decades of experience of environmental litigation and its role in protecting the environment and public health. As Wang Lide points out, the federal Clean Air Act of 1970 provided for litigation by the public. Subsequently, similar provisions featured in most major federal environmental legislation. In the United States, the courts often are relied upon to be the final executor of the law – hence the American writers’ focus on case studies.

The significant case studies presented demonstrate the design, development and future trends of the system. Some articles use them to discuss key issues, citing the cases Ailor vs Maynardville, Bennett vs Spear, National Wildlife Federation vs Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company and theAnimal Legal Defense Fund Inc. vs Glickman. Consideration of these cases explains some of the key principles of public litigation. Meanwhile, court decisions -- including majority and opposing views -- answer some of the long-standing questions about public litigation and even the public’s participation in environmental law enforcement.

As noted in the book’s preface, there is still a chronic lack of enforcement of laws and regulations. This is not just the case in China; other nations, including the United States, suffer from the same problem. Lawyer Michael E Waller writes that, in part, the existence of public litigation shows that the United States will never have the resources to monitor every single source of pollution, and that the residents living near those sources often are the most economic and effective enforcers of the law. So, public litigation has played in immeasurable role in improving enforcement. The study and application of US experience in legislation, theory and practice will assist China solving its own problems in environmental law enforcement.

The most notable feature of the book is its focus on practice, and the consideration of the gap between theory and practice in environmental jurisprudence. Almost all contributors point out that a road forward for environmental public-interest litigation will be found only through practice. Clearly, the academics are aware of the pressing lack of research in this area and are working to combat this. These are efforts that deserve acknowledgement.

The dialogue between China and the United States described in the book reflects differences in points of view and research methods, and also raises issues of adoption and localisation of legal systems. Can the environmental litigation arising from the American system of public litigation be transplanted to China and help the country reach its current environmental goals?

In the mid-1980s, an environmental court was established in the Qiaokou district of Wuhan to strengthen enforcement of environmental laws. More local courts are now following this example in order to allow public litigation. Recently, courts in Guiyang and Wuxi have accepted cases brought by the environmental NGO All-China Environmental Federation – a breakthrough in competences in environmental public-interest litigation.

Overall, though, even if environmental interest disputes can be handled within existing law, they may not be handled appropriately. It is not just a question of legislation; there also are issues of a lack of judicial independence and the ability and specialisation of judges. Without actual procedural regulations, judges have huge leeway. How they use that leeway may well be based on the aims of local officials and the background and influence of those involved in the case at hand, rather than justice.

In late 2005, six teachers and students from Peking University attempted to bring a case against PetroChina over its pollution of the Songhua River. They failed, with the court refusing to hear the case. This loss was not due to the legal system itself, but to the political inertia of the courts. When a court does not dare to accept a case, or to clearly state a cause for refusal, no amount of reason or debate will help.

Existing laws and legislation do not specifically allow for environmental public-interest cases – so how to break through the limitations of China’s legal system and avoid the obstacles caused by a lack of fundamental rights? With a lack of judicial independence, judicial capacity, awareness of citizens’ rights and specialised knowledge, what route can we take to build an environmental public-interest litigation system? Much exploration is still necessary, and perhaps the answer is hidden in the academic conversation contained in this book.


Wang Jin is a professor at Peking University School of Law.
Zhang Yan is a PhD student at the law school.

评论 comments

2

评论 comments

中文

EN

嗨 Hi Guest user

退出 Logout /


发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文 最大字符 1200

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200

排序 Sort By:

令人失望的书评

我认为这篇书评对于我理解作者提出的问题没有多大帮助。它包含了太多概念性和法律性文字,比如:性质,功能,主体资格、诉讼客体以及诉讼程序等。然而却没有针对普通读者,解释这些名词的含义。

比如,书评作者告诉我们,关键的议题均在案例分析中予以解答,然后给出了一份美国法律案例的列表。至于到底是什么议题,这些公共诉讼设计的关键原则又是如何被解释和阐述的,书评作者没有提到。而在倒数第二段里,书评开始变得有些趣味了,粗放的谈到2005年在中国发生的一起案例,不过读者却被告知法庭拒绝受理此案。

书评作者就如何克服中国法律制度的局限,采取什么途径建立环境公益诉讼制度提出问题。他们的答案是:“答案也许就蕴含在书中展示的学术对话中"。这不是答案,而是这篇揭示对公民社会日益重要的组成部分的无疾而终。

我想看到是书评作家对这本书内容的真实看法,而不是照搬枯燥的事实和数据。

Disappointing review

I found this review unhelpful to my understanding of the subject. It contains too many conceptual and legalistic words -- nature, function, competence, objects, process -- without explaining to an ordinary reader what it all means. The review writers tells us, for example, that key issues are discussed in case studies, then list the names of some US court cases. What issues did they address? What key principles of public litigation were explained or clarified? We are not told. In the next-to-last paragraph, the review starts to get interesting, with a glimpse of a 2005 pollution case in China -- but then we're told that a court refused to hear the complaint. The reviewers ask how the limitations of China's legal system can be surmounted and what route can be taken to build an environmental public-interest litigation system. Their answer: perhaps the solution is hidden in the academic conversation in the book. That is not an answer, but a limp way to end an article that reveals little about an increasingly important segment of civil society. I would have liked to hear what the review writers really think of the book's contents, rather than a dry recitation of facts and figures.


书评

个人觉得主要是书太差,不能怪书评差!

book review

Personally, the book is far to be good, so the review is not to blame!


合作伙伴 Partners

项目 Projects