论预防性环境民事公益诉讼中“重大风险”的司法认定  

Judicial determination of‘significant risk’in preventive environmental public interest litigation in China

作　　者：韩康宁 冷罗生[1] HAN Kangning;LENG Luosheng(School of Law,Beijing Normal University,Beijing 100875,China)

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学法学院,北京100875

出　　处：《中国人口·资源与环境》2023年第7期202-212,共11页China Population,Resources and Environment

基　　金：国家社会科学基金青年项目“比例原则视角下生态环境损害法律责任体系化研究”(批准号:22CFX041);北京师范大学学科交叉基金项目“应对气候变化的碳排放环境风险司法控制研究”(批准号:BNUXKJC2208);北京师范大学法学院学术型研究生专项科研基金研究课题“预防性司法救济视角下气候变化诉讼中国范式研究”(批准号:2022LAW010)

摘　　要：预防性环境民事公益诉讼蕴含着风险预防的内在机理,有助于完善环境风险规制体系并回应社会公众预防环境风险的需求。当前,中国虽然在司法解释中采用“重大风险”的表述,但是对于其内在固有本质特征、具体的司法识别方法以及因果关系的证明标准等问题,立法者并没有给出相对完备且具体的解释。如何正确识别与确认“具有损害社会公共利益的重大风险”,法院各行其是:或一律以行政行为为参考进行认定,或直接采纳科学技术的风险评估结果,或另行独立评估重大风险;其对象适用于环境污染行为,还是适用于生态破坏行为,也未可知。法院因对“重大风险”缺乏统一的认识,法官多依据环境风险评估报告径行裁判,无法妥善处理预防性环境司法权和环境行政权间的关系,令司法裁量流于形式。究其根本,重大风险的司法认定面临着意涵理解不一、认定主体错位和标准不明、确信机制僵化等局限性问题,致使诉讼无法正确处理司法能动与克制间的辩证关系。为解决因概念不清引起的认定混乱及机械裁判问题,进而妥善地发挥出司法的能动性,该研究对实践中问题予以必要回应:①对重大风险的内涵厘定,通过采取字面拆解和责任倒推的方式,澄清“重大风险”的概念并确认其基础对象。②划定重大风险的认定标准,将风险评估不确定性下的动态调整作为认定标准的划定前提,以严重损害后果发生的高度盖然性为认定标准的因果要求。③优化重大风险的确信机制,将客观科学理性与主观社会理性的有机结合作为确信机制的内在逻辑,并采用阶段化确信机制安排,进行两次不同程度的“重大风险”认定。Preventive environmental public interest litigation contains the inherent mechanism of risk prevention,which can help im⁃prove the regulatory system against environmental risks and respond to the public’s demand for preventing environmental risks.Cur⁃rently,although China has adopted the expression of‘significant risk’at the legislative level,legislators have not provided relatively comprehensive and specific explanations on its inherent nature,specific judicial identification methods,and proof standards for specific causal relationships.How to correctly identify and confirm‘significant risks that harm public interests’is left to the discretion of the courts:either by uniformly recognizing administrative actions as references,directly adopting risk assessment results from scientific and technological evaluations,or independently evaluating significant risks.It is also unclear whether the term applies to environmental pol⁃lution or ecological destruction.Fundamentally,due to a lack of a unified understanding of‘significant risks,’judges mostly make judg⁃ments based on environmental risk assessment reports,which cannot properly handle the relationship between preventive environmental judicial powers and environmental administrative powers,resulting in judicial discretion becoming formalistic.Fundamentally,the judi⁃cial determination of significant risks faces limitations such as inconsistent connotations,misplaced recognition subjects and unclear standards,and rigid confidence mechanisms,making it difficult for lawsuits to correctly handle the dialectical relationship between judi⁃cial initiative and restraint.To solve the confusion caused by unclear concepts and mechanical judgments and to properly give play to the judiciary’s initiative,this article responds to practical problems in three ways:first,defining the connotations of‘significant risks,’clarifying their concepts,and confirming their basic objects by taking a literal decomposition and responsibility backtracking approach;s

关 键 词：预防性 环境民事公益诉讼 重大风险 司法能动 司法认定 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]