环境民事公益诉讼中“重大风险”司法限缩认定模式之提倡  

Advocating for the Judicial Narrowing of the Recognition Model of“Significant Risks”in Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation

作　　者：冷罗生[1,2] 韩康宁 LENG Luosheng;HAN Kangning

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学法学院,北京100875 [2]北京师范大学经济法学与环境资源法学教学研究中心,北京100875 [3]西澳大利亚法学院 [4]科延大学法学院

出　　处：《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》2025年第1期26-37,共12页Journal of Social Science of Hunan Normal University

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”(22CFX041);中国国家留学基金管理委员会“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”(202406040105)。

摘　　要：“重大风险”作为不确定法律概念,需经司法具体化以妥善适用。环境民事公益诉讼中“重大风险”的司法认定呈现出扩张化趋向,在立法的框架下针对个案予以情景化和差异化的判断。现有多样化的认定模式,偏离司法规范性要求,忽视“科学评估”与“价值评价”的内在统一性。通过审视“重大风险”司法认定模式的法律规范属性,对综合标准认定模式进行限缩研究,以实现行为规范与裁判规范的有机整合。司法应当摒弃形式化的机械认定或恣意能动认定“重大风险”的思路,回归风险预防原则在环境司法中的谦抑性,使得认定模式呈现“适度谦抑+总体限缩”之样态。在内涵上,防范司法机关对重大风险的边界与对象进行扩张解读,宜将其“原因”“结果”“可能性”“对象”“节点”予以限缩;在行为要件上,宜将行为要素按阶段进行划定,将违法性作为内生评价要素,以限缩认定范围;在认定方法上,需在因果关系认定中优化举证责任,适度发挥职权探知主义,细化认定规则以保证其适用相当性。“Significant risks”,as an uncertain legal concept,requires judicial specification for appropriate application.The judicial recognition of“significant risks”in environmental civil public interest litigation demonstrates an expanding trend,with situational and differentiated judgments applied to individual cases within the legislative framework.Existing diverse recognition models depart from judicial normative requirements,neglecting the inherent unity of“scientific assessment”and“value judgment.”By examining the legal normative attributes of the judicial recognition model of“significant risks”and researching the restriction of comprehensive standard recognition models,organic integration of behavioral norms and judicial norms can be achieved.The judiciary should abandon formalistic mechanical recognition or arbitrary active recognition of“significant risks”and return to the modesty of the risk prevention principle in environmental justice,presenting a mode of“moderate modesty+overall restriction”in recognition models.Concerning the essence,to prevent the broad interpretation of the boundaries and objects of significant risks by judicial authorities,it is advisable to restrict the“reason”“results”“possibilities”“objects”and“nodes”;in terms of behavioral elements,it is advisable to define the elements of behavior according to stages and consider illegality as an endogenous evaluative element to limit the scope of recognition;regarding the methods of recognition,it is necessary to improve the allocation of the burden of proof in causation determination,moderately exercise the discretion of judicial investigation,and refine recognition rules to ensure their applicability.

关 键 词：重大风险 司法认定 环境民事公益诉讼 谦抑性 风险预防原则 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学] D922.68[政治法律—法学]