环境公益侵权责任中“国家规定”范围的界定  

Definition of the Scope of "State Regulation" of Environmental Public Interest Tort Liability

作　　者：李义松[2] 叶翔 LI Yi-song;YE Xiang

机构地区：[1]不详 [2]河海大学法学院

出　　处：《江苏警官学院学报》2022年第5期5-12,共8页Journal of Jiangsu Police Institute

基　　金：江苏省社科基金重点项目“地方环境立法理论与实践研究”(19FXA002);江苏省政府招标项目“《江苏省固体废物污染环境防治条例》修订前期研究”(SJC2021F-11103);中央高校基本科研业务费专项“我国环境公益诉讼专家陪审制度研究”(B220207033)。

摘　　要：“国家规定”的范围决定着行为主体承担环境公益侵权责任的边界。实践中,对“国家规定”的范围界定存在标准模糊、观点不一等问题。通过比较刑法第96条对“国家规定”的定义并遵循法益协调原则,人民法院在认定污染环境、破坏生态的行为是否违反国家规定时,应以法律、行政法规、部门规章和强制性生态环境标准为依据。同时,基于环境治理政府主导与有效应对新型污染物的考虑,必要时也可参照生态环境政策的相关规定,但司法解释、环保规范性文件、技术规范因其性质和功能方面的差异而需排除适用。就规范性法律文件是否属于“国家规定”发生争议时,可将之作为法律适用问题呈报最高人民法院,由其审慎决定。The scope of "national regulations" determines the boundary of environmental public interest tort liability. In practice, there are some problems in the definition of the scope of "national regulation", such as vague standards and different views. By comparing the definition of "state provisions" in Article 96 of the Criminal Law and following the principle of coordination of legal interests, the people’s court should take laws, administrative regulations, departmental rules and compulsory ecological environment standards as the basis when determining whether the acts that pollute the environment or destroy the ecology violate the state provisions. At the same time, based on the consideration of government-led environmental governance and effective response to new pollutants, relevant provisions of ecological and environmental policies can also be referred to when necessary. However, judicial interpretation, environmental normative documents and technical specifications need to be excluded due to their differences in nature and function. In case of a dispute over whether a normative legal document is a "state provision", it may be submitted to the Supreme People’s Court as a matter of the application of law for its prudent decision.

关 键 词：环境公益侵权责任 国家规定 行为违法性要件 法律适用 

分 类 号：D922.6[政治法律—环境与资源保护法学]