国际投资环境损害中风险预防原则审查分歧及其原因分析  

Analysis of the Differences in the Review of the Precautionary Principle in International Investment about Environmental Damage and Its Reasons

作　　者：何志鹏[1] 殷孟如 HE Zhipeng;YIN Mengru

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院 [2]吉林大学国家发展与安全研究院

出　　处：《国际法学刊》2023年第3期1-18,152,153,共20页Journal of International Law

摘　　要：风险预防原则是国际社会普遍倡导并以条约和协定的方式确立的国际环境法中重要原则之一,在国际司法实践中对风险预防原则的审查是影响国际投资环境损害案件走向的关键。在跨国环境损害中,我国需在保护环境的同时维护发展权益。因此该原则的审查分歧及其形成原因值得我们研究,以便利用这种分歧规避法律风险,在面对国际投资中的环境损害争议时制定应对策略,更好地维护我国的环境权益。这些分歧主要有对科学不确定性的衡量受技术因素制约、审慎原则提供的指引并不明确以及举证责任的承担不统一三个方面。出现这些分歧的主要原因在于预防原则与风险预防原则的交叉适用、风险预防原则在条约法和习惯国际法中的区别性顺位以及风险预防原则审查标准中风险程度的衡量差异。As one of the important principles in international environmental law,the precautionary principle of risk is commonly advocated by the international community and established by way of treaties and agreements,and the review of the precautionary principle in international judicial practice is the key to the direction of international investment environmental damage cases.In the case of transnational environmental damage,China is faced with the need to protect the environment and safeguard the rights and interests of development.There is an urgent need to clarify and analyse the differences in standards of review relating to the precautionary principle in international litigation and arbitration,in order to provide guidance on the formulation of treaty provisions relating to the protection of the environment in our foreign investments and the implementation of our obligations under the precautionary principle.Making polluters pay the environmental costs of their activities,compensating innocent victims,protecting the environment and,in some cases,protecting our country from environmental risks.The differences in the review of the principle and the reasons for its formation are worthy of study so that we can take advantage of such differences to avoid risks,formulate coping strategies in the face of cross-border environmental damage disputes and better safeguard the environmental rights and interests of China.The main areas of disagreement are that the measurement of scientific uncertainty is subject to technical considerations,that the guidance provided by the precautionary principle is not clear and that the burden of proof is not uniform.The main reasons for these differences are the crossapplication of the precautionary principle and the precautionary principle,the differential subordination of the precautionary principle to treaty law and customary international law,and the difference in the measurement of the degree of risk in the standard of review of the precautionary principle.By grasping the standards esta

关 键 词：风险预防原则 损害预防原则 科学不确定性 审慎原则 风险程度 

分 类 号：D996.9[政治法律—环境与资源保护法学]