论生态环境检察的专门化、体系化与法治化
|
摘要
近年来的环境司法实践基本消解了检察机关在环境司法中的"怯场"或"不在场",以及环境法难以司法化的问题,形成了"专业化法律监督+恢复性司法实践+社会化综合治理"的环境司法模式。在生态环境保护领域的"私益诉讼""公益诉讼"和"国益诉讼"这三大诉讼并行格局情况下,仍然存在对环境司法专门化的狭隘化理解、司法能动的随意化和过度化、创新过度等倾向,其深层次原因在于环境公益诉讼中检察机关法律角色与定位的混同、检察权功能及事由的错位。在中国特色生态法治体系构建过程中,亟须加强检察机关环境司法工作的体系化、法治化,践行"经由形式主义的实质法治"的司法形式主义,以更有效的促进不同国家机关共同履行"共同但有区别的"国家环境义务。
In recent years, with the specialization and systematization of environmental justice, the problem of "stage fright" or "absence" of procuratorial organs in environmental justice has basically been eliminated, the difficulties in putting environmental laws into force have largely been tackled, and the environmental justice model of "professional legal supervision +restorative judicial practice + comprehensive social governance" has been formed. Under the parallel pattern of "private interest litigation", "public interest litigation" and "national interest litigation" in the field of ecological environmental protection, there are still some tendencies, such as narrow understanding of the specialization of environmental justice, arbitrary and excessive judicial initiative, and excessive innovation. The underlying reasons lie in the confusion of the legal role and orientation of procuratorial organs, and the dislocation of procuratorial power in environmental public interest litigation. In the process of building an ecological legal system with Chinese characteristics, it is urgent to strengthen the systematization and legalization of environmental judicial work of procuratorial organs, and to practice the judicial formalism of "substantive rule of law through formalism", so as to promote different state organs to fulfill their "common but differentiated" national environmental obligations more effectively.
In recent years, with the specialization and systematization of environmental justice, the problem of "stage fright" or "absence" of procuratorial organs in environmental justice has basically been eliminated, the difficulties in putting environmental laws into force have largely been tackled, and the environmental justice model of "professional legal supervision +restorative judicial practice + comprehensive social governance" has been formed. Under the parallel pattern of "private interest litigation", "public interest litigation" and "national interest litigation" in the field of ecological environmental protection, there are still some tendencies, such as narrow understanding of the specialization of environmental justice, arbitrary and excessive judicial initiative, and excessive innovation. The underlying reasons lie in the confusion of the legal role and orientation of procuratorial organs, and the dislocation of procuratorial power in environmental public interest litigation. In the process of building an ecological legal system with Chinese characteristics, it is urgent to strengthen the systematization and legalization of environmental judicial work of procuratorial organs, and to practice the judicial formalism of "substantive rule of law through formalism", so as to promote different state organs to fulfill their "common but differentiated" national environmental obligations more effectively.
引文
[1] 肖建国.利益交错中的环境公益诉讼原理[J].中国人民大学学报,2016(2):14-22.
[2] 王树义.论生态文明建设与环境司法改革[J].中国法学,2014(3):54-71.
[3] 吕忠梅.环境司法专门化:现状调查与制度重构[M].北京:法律出版社,2017:6-9.
[4] 张忠民.环境司法专门化发展的实证检视:以环境审判机构和环境审判机制为中心[J].中国法学,2016(6):177-196.
[5] 雷磊.指导性案例法源地位再反思[J].中国法学,2015(1):272-290.
[6] 陈真亮.环境保护的国家义务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.
[7] 杜群,梁春艳.我国环境公益诉讼单一模式及比较视域下的反思[J].法律适用,2016(1):46-54.
[8] 林莉红.论检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的制度空间[J].行政法学研究,2018(6):56-57.
[9] 胡静,黄黎敏.检察机关提起的环境行政公益诉讼法律问题研究——基于37份裁判文书的实证分析[C]//于文轩.环境资源与能源法评论(第3辑),北京:中国政法大学出版社,2018.
[10] 张忠民.检察机关试点环境公益诉讼的回溯与反思[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2018(6):28-42.
[11] 王秀卫.我国环境民事公益诉讼举证责任分配的反思与重构[J].法律评论,2019(2):169-176.
[12] 杨朝霞.环境司法主流化的两大法宝:环境司法专门化和环境资源权利化[J].中国政法大学学报,2016(1):82-95.
[13] 孙洪坤.检察院司法行政事务管理权和检察权相分离研究——基于实证考察的分析[J].东方法学,2018(2):122-129.
[14] 方印,陶文娟.生态检察权探究[J].中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版),2018(1):20-24.
[15] 郭武.论环境行政与环境司法联动的中国模式[J].法学评论,2017(2):183-196.
[16] 李艳芳,吴凯杰.论检察机关在环境公益诉讼中的角色与定位——兼评最高人民检察院《检察机关提起公益诉讼改革试点方案》[J].中国人民大学学报,2016(2):2-13.
[17] 孙洪坤.环境公益诉讼专门立法研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2018:71.
[18] 张震.中国宪法的环境观及其规范表达[J].中国法学,2018(4):12-19.
[19] 李启家.环境法领域利益冲突的识别与衡平[J].法学评论,2015(6):134-140.
[20] 谢玲,黄锡生.生态文明与司法文明的辩证关系——兼论司法文明的生态化回应[J].温州大学学报(社会科学版),2015(3):61-68.
[21] 周永坤.法理学——全球视野(第四版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2016,序言:1-6.
[22] 李挚萍.外国环境司法专门化的经验及挑战[J].法学杂志,2012(11):112-119.
[23] 钭晓东,杜寅.中国特色生态法治体系建设论纲[J].法制与社会发展,2017(6):21-38.
[2] 王树义.论生态文明建设与环境司法改革[J].中国法学,2014(3):54-71.
[3] 吕忠梅.环境司法专门化:现状调查与制度重构[M].北京:法律出版社,2017:6-9.
[4] 张忠民.环境司法专门化发展的实证检视:以环境审判机构和环境审判机制为中心[J].中国法学,2016(6):177-196.
[5] 雷磊.指导性案例法源地位再反思[J].中国法学,2015(1):272-290.
[6] 陈真亮.环境保护的国家义务研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.
[7] 杜群,梁春艳.我国环境公益诉讼单一模式及比较视域下的反思[J].法律适用,2016(1):46-54.
[8] 林莉红.论检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的制度空间[J].行政法学研究,2018(6):56-57.
[9] 胡静,黄黎敏.检察机关提起的环境行政公益诉讼法律问题研究——基于37份裁判文书的实证分析[C]//于文轩.环境资源与能源法评论(第3辑),北京:中国政法大学出版社,2018.
[10] 张忠民.检察机关试点环境公益诉讼的回溯与反思[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2018(6):28-42.
[11] 王秀卫.我国环境民事公益诉讼举证责任分配的反思与重构[J].法律评论,2019(2):169-176.
[12] 杨朝霞.环境司法主流化的两大法宝:环境司法专门化和环境资源权利化[J].中国政法大学学报,2016(1):82-95.
[13] 孙洪坤.检察院司法行政事务管理权和检察权相分离研究——基于实证考察的分析[J].东方法学,2018(2):122-129.
[14] 方印,陶文娟.生态检察权探究[J].中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版),2018(1):20-24.
[15] 郭武.论环境行政与环境司法联动的中国模式[J].法学评论,2017(2):183-196.
[16] 李艳芳,吴凯杰.论检察机关在环境公益诉讼中的角色与定位——兼评最高人民检察院《检察机关提起公益诉讼改革试点方案》[J].中国人民大学学报,2016(2):2-13.
[17] 孙洪坤.环境公益诉讼专门立法研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2018:71.
[18] 张震.中国宪法的环境观及其规范表达[J].中国法学,2018(4):12-19.
[19] 李启家.环境法领域利益冲突的识别与衡平[J].法学评论,2015(6):134-140.
[20] 谢玲,黄锡生.生态文明与司法文明的辩证关系——兼论司法文明的生态化回应[J].温州大学学报(社会科学版),2015(3):61-68.
[21] 周永坤.法理学——全球视野(第四版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2016,序言:1-6.
[22] 李挚萍.外国环境司法专门化的经验及挑战[J].法学杂志,2012(11):112-119.
[23] 钭晓东,杜寅.中国特色生态法治体系建设论纲[J].法制与社会发展,2017(6):21-38.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |