【作者】 李伟芳；

【导师】 周洪钧；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文主要从国际法视角,围绕跨界环境损害的法律定义、特征、赔偿范围,通过归纳、比较、分析等方法对国家在跨界环境损害方面承担的国际法义务及责任等问题展开讨论。在指出传统国家责任对处理跨界环境损害赔偿所存在的局限后,对国际法委员会2006年通过的《关于危险活动造成跨界损害中的损失分配原则草案案文》中的重要概念进行全面分析,总结提出完善民事赔偿责任制度是解决跨界环境损害争端、确保跨界损害的受害者获得及时与充分赔偿的主要法律救济手段,并对中国如何处理跨界环境损害问题提出几点建议。本文分为五章。第一章序言,主要交待本文的选题背景、意义、研究范围及素材选取。第二章主要阐述跨界环境损害的定义、特征及其赔偿范围。通过分析,本文认为“跨界环境损害”主要是指人类对环境的有害活动通过各种环境媒介越过有害活动起源地国的管辖或控制区域,在该国管辖或控制范围以外的区域引起的损害。国际条约、司法判例以及学者学说认为并不是所有对环境的“损害”都能引起法律上的责任,除非这种损害是“重大的”或“实质性程度”的损害。引起责任的跨界环境损害应具有如下特征:损害必须是人类活动的结果;损害应该是人类活动的有形后果所造成的;这种有形后果具有跨界性;损害必须是重大的或实质性的损害。从责任赔偿的角度来看,广义上理解跨界环境损害的赔偿范围应包括两个方面:对环境本身的损害和由于对环境的损害而引起的有害后果(主要是指人身伤害、财产损失或损害)。具体可以体现为三方面:对人身的伤害、对财产带来的损失或损害、环境本身的损害,包括因采取预防、防范、恢复被损害环境至原来状态措施的费用以及填补同样环境因素而产生的费用。第三章主要从国际法角度讨论跨界环境损害中的国家责任。本文认为,在国际法中直接规定跨界损害国家责任并具体规定国家责任形式的条约只有1972年《空间物体造成损害之国际责任公约》。此外,1982年《联合国海洋法公约》与1997年《国际水道非航行使用法公约》中的某些条款涉及到在一定条件下国家须承担赔偿责任的规定。大多数条约都是只规定一般赔偿责任,其中有的条约最终制定了关于责任和赔偿问题的民事责任议定书,规定了具体的程序性或实质性规则;但更多的条约则没有进一步的行动。“不损害国外环境原则”是国家处理跨界环境损害问题的基本原则,也是重要的习惯法规则。该原则具体表现为国家的预防义务,即有义务预防、减少和控制对环境的损害。在司法实践中,直接明确国家赔偿责任的案例只有特雷尔冶炼厂仲裁案。联合国赔偿委员会处理1991年海湾战争环境损害的赔偿实践不是依据国际条约,而是依据联合国安理会决议,它实际上构成安理会根据《联合国宪章》第七章对严重危害国际和平与安全行为所采取的执行行动的一部分,在国际环境法中可以被认为是一个绝无仅有的例子,但并不具有普遍性。第四章主要是探讨国际法委员会提出的危险活动所致跨界损害的损失分配模式。由于传统国家责任在处理跨界环境损害问题中存在的局限性,国际法委员会希望能够编纂一套区别于国家责任的国际损害赔偿责任制度。但是在具体编纂过程中,由于概念和理论上的难度、标题的确切程度和这个专题与“国家责任”的关系等因素,这个专题的范围和内容还是不明确。为此,国际法委员会在1997年决定将专题分为“预防”和“责任”两部分加以研究。在完成“预防”专题的研究工作后,国际法委员改变思路,转而研究跨界损害的损失分配模式,即跨界损害的损失应在参与危险活动操作的不同参加者之间分配,以促进一种更公平、更快捷的法律救济方法。其目的是注重损失的分配,而不是建立国家的国际赔偿责任制度,以确保跨界损害的受害者获得及时与充分的赔偿。第五章是结论。主要是归纳本文的基本观点,并在此基础上提出关于中国政府应对可能出现的跨界环境损害问题的几点建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis will begin with an introduction to basic terms and concepts, particularly the term“transboundary environmental damage”, then will mainly discusses the state responsibility and liability for transboundary environmental damage in international law. Due to the limitations of the states responsibility for transboundary environmental damage, this thesis suggests the development of civil liability regime will play a significant role as a tool for environmental protection.The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter one mainly introduces the academic background and significance of the subject, the ways of selecting materials, the scope of the subject.Chapter two will begin with an introduction to basic terms and concepts, particularly the term“transboundary environmental damage”. Given the great volume of legal materials and literature on international environmental law, this thesis concludes that the transboundary environmental damage can arise from a wide range of activities which are carried out in one country but inflict adverse effects in the territory or control areas of another or the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. While all human activities having adverse effects might give rise to environmental damage, it is unlikely that all environmental damage results in legal liability and responsibility. There are no agreed international standards which establish a threshold for environmental damage which triggers liability and allows claims to be brought. State practice, decisions of international tribunals and the writings of jurists suggest that environmental damage must be‘significant’or‘substantial’for liability to be triggered. In defining environmental damage, scholars propose four conditions which must exist for environmental damage to fall within the definition of transboundary environmental damage. First, the damage must be a result of human activity; secondly, the damage must result from physical consequences of that human activity; thirdly, there must be transboundary effects; and fourthly, the damage must be significant or substantial. The general scope providing for liability and compensation evolves from a focus on damage to persons and to property through damage to the environment, damage to the environment itself. They include:⑴loss of life or personal injury;⑵loss of, or damage to, property;⑶loss or damage by impairment of the environment evolving the costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement of the environment and the costs of reasonable response measures.Chapter three mainly discusses the state responsibility and liability for transboundary environmental damage in international law. In conventional international law on the protection of the environment, there is currently only one treaty which falls completely addressing the question of liability, namely, the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects of 1972. Another fairly treaty rule on responsibility is Article 139 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of Sea. Besides, one other Convention which seems to envisage the application of state liability is the Article 7 of the 1997 Convention of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Most treaties include those in which a reference to liability has been made in the text without further clarification as to the substantive or procedural rules of liability.“No-Harm Principle”is the fundamental principle in the customary international law concerning transboundary environmental damage. Under this principle, the states have a duty to prevent, reduce, and control pollution and environmental damage. In the past judicial decisions and state practice, there is only one case referred to state liability for transboundary environmental damage without any legal debates, namely, the Trail Smelter arbitration case. The applicable law of the claims for environmental damage in the practice of the UN Compensation Commission is Security Council resolution 687 and other relevant Security Council resolutions, the criteria established by the Governing Council, and any pertinent decisions of the Governing Council. The environmental claims before the Commission provide a rare and much needed example of institutionalized and systematic processing of such claims in the history of international claims resolution.Chapter four mainly focus on the allocation models of loss in the case of transboundary damage arising out of hazardous activities. Due to the limitations of the states responsibility for transboundary environmental damage, the International Law Commission (ILC) decided to codify a set of legal regime for the states liability in case of loss from transboundary environmental damage in 1978. After years of working, the ILC reviewed the work on this topic in 1997. It felt that the scope and content of the topic remained unclear due to such factors as conceptual and theoretical difficulties, appropriateness of the title and the relation of the subject to the topic of“state responsibility”. It further observed that aspects of prevention and liability are distinct from one another, though related. It was recommended that they be studied separately. After finished the work on the subject of prevention, The ILC established a working group in 2002 to consider possible approaches to the study of the topic on liability. The working group recommended the ILC should better deal with the topic as allocation of loss among different actors involved on the operations of the hazardous activities. The focus on allocation of loss instead of the development of an international liability regime is well in tune with the emerging thinking on the subject which is focused on facilitating a more equitable and expeditious scheme of compensation to the victims of transboundary damage.Chapter five is to conclude the whole views of this thesis, and also put forward some suggestions to Chinese government for dealing with the problems of transboundary environmental damage which might occur in China.更多还原