中美环保社会组织环境民事公益诉讼起诉资格规则之比较:基于立法与司法的视角  

Comparison on the Standing to Sue for Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation between Chinese and American Environmental Social Organizations: On the Legislative and Judicial Perspectives

作　　者：王曦 郭祥[3] WANG Xi;GUO Xiang

机构地区：[1]昆明理工大学法学院,云南昆明650500 [2]昆明理工大学生态文明与环境法治研究基地,云南昆明650500 [3]昆明理工大学环境科学与工程学院

出　　处：《中国地质大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第5期79-94,共16页Journal of China University of Geosciences(Social Sciences Edition)

摘　　要：通过辨析起诉资格和环境公益诉讼概念并考察和对比中美两国有关法律文本,发现虽然中美两国都通过立法授权环保社会组织提起环境民事公益诉讼,但由于环保社会组织的特殊身份,两国立法机关对环保社会组织环境民事公益诉讼起诉资格规则的设定有两个重要的区别。一是在环境民事公益诉讼诉前程序设定上的不同。美国的《清洁空气法》等法律的公民诉讼条款规定了一个“诉前通知期”程序。它的存在迫使公民诉讼的原告和法院尊重对被控行为有管辖权的当地行政机关的优先管辖权。我国法律无此规定。我国这类诉前程序的缺失,一方面导致在环境民事公益诉讼中环保社会组织和法院可能僭越行政权;另一方面,导致司法权被不适当地前移到与行政权并列的位置,从而使其失去了其本身特有的“最后防线”的功能。二是在环境民事公益诉讼原告利害关系审查要求上的不同。本研究表明,美国的法院在环境公益诉讼中坚持对原告与其提告案件的利害关系进行审查。我国立法机关和法院则默示地完全放弃了这项审查。这项放弃在法理上值得商榷。这些立法上的差异提醒我们要高度重视立法活动的系统性影响。为此建议对我国现行环境民事公益诉讼制度增补一个“诉前通知期”程序。如此既可避免环境民事公益诉讼对行政优先管辖原则的违反,又可弥补现行法律放弃环境民事公益诉讼原告利害关系审查要求的弊端。Through analyzing the concepts of standing to sue and environmental public interest litigation, and examining and comparing the relevant legal texts in China and the United States, it is found that although both China and the United States have authorized environmental social organizations to file environmental public interest civil litigation through legislation, due to the special status of environmental social organizations, there are two important differences between the legislative bodies of the two countries in setting the rules of standing to sue for environmental social organizations.The first is the difference in the setting of pre-litigation procedures in environmental civil public interest litigation.In the United States, the citizen suit provisions of laws such as the Clean Air Act provide for a procedure of “pre-litigation notice period”.Its existence compels plaintiffs in citizen suits and courts to respect the preferential jurisdiction of the local administrative authorities that have jurisdiction over the alleged violations in the cases.There is no such procedure in Chinese law.On the one hand, the lack of such “pre-litigation notice period” procedures in China leads to the possibility of overstepping the administrative power by environmental social organizations and courts in environmental civil public interest litigation;on the other hand, as a result, the judicial power is inappropriately moved forward to the position paralleling with the executive power, so that it loses its unique “last safeguard” function.The second is the difference in the requirement of the plaintiff's interest in environmental civil public interest litigation.The study shows that courts in the United States insist on examining the plaintiff's interest in the cases of environmental public interest litigation.In China, the national legislature and courts have implicitly abandoned this requirement.The abandonment is questionable on legal grounds.These differences in legislation of the United States and China remi

关 键 词：环境民事公益诉讼 起诉资格 立法 司法 比较法 系统性影响 

分 类 号：D915.18[政治法律—诉讼法学]