【作者】 胡静；

【导师】 王灿发；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 环境与资源保护法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 关于环境问题发生的原因有三种理论：技术论、制度论和文化论。技术论认为，技术或者因为其变成独立于人类的力量，或者被人类不当使用造成环境问题；制度论认为，资本主义制度、市场失败和政府失败都可能导致环境问题；文化论认为，西方文化的外向性和侵略性是环境问题发生的根本原因。作为社会控制工具的道德、宗教和法律都是因应环境问题的策略。道德和宗教与法律在规则基础、规则原则和功能以及调整对象方面存在差异。法律相对于道德和宗教而言，其行为要求水准比较低，容易为人们共同接受成为社会存在的基础。法律不是针对人的内心，而是针对人的行为，不是消灭利益冲突，而是正视冲突并寻求解决冲突的办法。环境法学界缺乏对环境法正当性的整体和系统研究，往往把环境权理论、环境伦理学(特别是非人类中心主义)、经济学分析以及环境正义理论等作为环境法正当性的依据。环境权理论经过法律实践的发展没有得到采纳，生态哲学与法律性格格格不入而难以成为法律实践的指导，经济学的效率不是法律的首要价值，环境正义理论适用范围的狭窄决定其难以全面诠释环境法。环境法作为应对环境问题的长久之计必然面临正当性的质疑。对法律的正当性论证路径主要有契约论、自然法理论、人权理论、正义论。契约论只是论证法律产生形式的正当性而非法律内容的正当性；自然法的来源过于神秘，内容缺乏统一性和绝对性，其内容的永恒性也难以解释法律的进化特征；人权观受到政治干扰不够客观，而且人权是正义的落实而非正义的源头。正义论才是解释法律正当性的最佳理论。正义对法律内容的要求以人的需求为起点。人的需求没有得到满足产生利益，每个人在利益追求上有差异，但利益客体对每个人都有用。每个人都可以利用这些利益客体追求各自的利益。利益客体相对于人的需求具有稀缺性。对利益客体的追逐必然产生冲突。贯彻了正义的法律是解决利益冲突的工具。正义概念的核心是“给予每个人应得的东西”，正义的内容是等利交换和等害交换。罗尔斯两个正义的原则解决基本自由、经济社会权利的分配。基本自由按照成员资格平等分配，经济社会权利按照贡献实行差别分配，当然要满足一定的前提：机会平等和有利于最少受惠者。差别原则包括按照需要分配的原则，按照品德、才能分配的原则，按照贡献分配的原则。真正的公正原则只有贡献原则(包括德才原则)。关于权利的内容有自由说和利益说之分，财产权的本质是自由，人身权的本质是利益。从终极意义上看，法律是施加义务而非保护权利，权利只是设定义务的方式之一。法律对利益客体的分配思路是优先设定权利，难以设定权利的，就直接分配利益客体或者设定义务。环境保护中的利益客体即基本有用物品有环境资源和环境安全。从环境保护的角度看，对环境资源的所有权的分配不如对开发使用权的分配重要，而在发放开发使用权之前对环境资源用途的规划则最为重要，环境保护最关注环境资源的用途而非其权利归属。国家一般将自然资源开发权和排污权分配给企业，分配原则首先是按照贡献原则，其次是德才原则。环境安全则实行平等分配。义务分配的顺序是：如果能确定具体污染者是谁，适用污染者负担原则，如果不能确定具体污染者，但可以确定污染者的范围，便适用集体负担原则，如果污染者的范围也无法确定，自然无使用污染者负担原则和集体负担原则的余地，只能由共同体的全体成员来负担。对义务人课以义务的程度必须遵循比例原则。国家除了具有立法、执法、司法和守法义务外，还有维护最低环境质量的积极义务，甚至在条件许可时，即使在最低环境质量实现后还有进一步改善环境质量的义务。基本环境权是度量国家环境资源法律义务的标准。基本环境权无论如何必须得到保护。基本环境权属于基本自由，不能与其他权利和利益交易。基本环境权公权化只有政治障碍，没有法律障碍。即便对自然资源设定权利，公法也施加给权利人大量法律义务。制度选择很大程度上是义务的分配。控制环境风险的制度有四项：市场力、政府管制、侵权法或普通法责任和社会保险。每种制度并非完美无缺，都有各自的适用范围、边界、优点和缺点。它们相互联系、相互补充以实现环境法的目的。每项制度发挥的作用取决于问题的特征。在进行制度工具的选择时，存在以下两个层次的判断。第一，是选择管制还是侵权法或普通法责任制度?第二，如果选择管制，如何确定管制方式?一旦决定某个问题需要采取环境管制，至少必须面对三个问题：(1)管制对象是什么?(2)管制的判断依据是什么?(3)具体的管制措施是什么?给个人施加法律义务的环境法制度工具的选择主要依据是效率，但环境保护的目的和给谁施加法律义务则由正义决定。更多还原

【Abstract】 The theories about the causes of environmental problems include three kinds: the technology theory, the institution theory, the culture theory. According to the technology theory, either technology as an power independent from human or improper using technology causes environmental problems. According to the institution theory, capitalism or market failure or government failure cause environmental problems. In the view of culture, western culture’s ambitiousness and aggressiveness is the fundamental cause. Morality, religion and law as the social control instruments are the solutions to environmental problems. Law is different from morality and religion in rule basis, rule principle and function, and rule target. Law that is easy to be accepted as the basis of social existence by community members should have lower action requirement level than morality and religion. Law acts on person’s action, not idea, devotes itself to solve the existing interest conflict, not eliminate the interest conflict from person’s idea.The domain of environmental law lacks the integrated and systematic research on environmental law’s justification. Although some theories make some efforts to justify environmental law, they are full of loopholes. The environmental right theory all the time has not been accepted by legal practice. The ecological philosophy is different from law’s nature and can not become the guidance of environmental law. Efficiency of economics is not the supreme value of law. The scope of application of the environmental justice theory is very limited and can not justify all environmental law’s field. Environmental law as an long-term not short-term strategy need its justification. However, this question is not yet solved.The theories on justifying law mainly includes the contract theory, the natural law theory, the human right theory, the justice theory. The contract theory just justifies the law-making procedure not the contents of law. The natural law theory origins from the mystery whose contents lack the uniformity and absoluteness, is hard to explain law’s development. Human right’s point of view is not objective, influenced by political position. In addition, human right is after justice in logic and is specification of justice. The justice theory is the best theory on justifying law.The justice theory begins from the individual demand. Interest origins from the dissatisfied demand. Each person has different interests. However, interest objects are useful for each person. Each person can use these interest objects to seek respective interests. Interest objects are scarce for demand. Seeking interest objects leads to conflict. Law of justice is the solution to interest conflict. The essence of the concept "justice " is "giving every man his due". The contents of justice are exchanging interest and damage equally. John. Rawls’s two justice principles discuss distributing fundamental liberties and economic social rights. Fundamental liberties are distributed according to equal principle. The distribution of economic social rights is unequal and different. The different principle should meet two preconditions: chance equality and benefiting least-favored-man. The different principles include demand principle, merit and ability principle, contribution principle. Real justice principle is contribution principle(including merit and ability principle). The understandings of content of right include two kinds: liberty and interest. The essence of property right is liberty, the essence of personal right is interest. The process of distribution of interest objects is defining right firstly, and then designing obligation. If it is difficult to define right, law will directly distribute interest objects.Primary goods, namely, interest objects in environmental protection are environmental resources and environmental security. At an angle of environmental protection, how to use environmental resources is the most important, who are granted to use licenses(use right) is the second most important, who has environmental resources property is not very important. State distributes development right and discharge right (two use rights) to enterprises. The distribution principles is contribution principle firstly, and then merit and ability principle secondly. Environmental security is distributed according to equal principle. The sequence of obligation’s distribution reads as follows. If the polluters can be identified, polluter pays principle will be applied. If the polluters can not be identified and the scope of potential polluters can be identified, group pays principle will be applied. If the scope of potential polluters can not be identified, state pays principle will be applied. Obligations are exert on persons according to proportion principle. State has legislation obligation, judicial obligation, enforcement obligation, obedience obligation. In addition, state has positive obligation that are maintaining fundamental available environmental quality, even improving environmental quality after fundamental available environmental quality is met if state has enough ability. Fundamental environmental right is the standard that is used to define state’s obligation. Fundamental environmental right should at any rate be protected. Fundamental environmental right belongs to fundamental liberty, can not be exchanged with other rights and interests. State has legal obligation to maintain citizens’ fundamental environmental right. Arranging fundamental environmental right as public right has no legal barrier but political barrier.Even though law designs rights to environmental resources, there are a lot of legal obligations with rights. Institutional choice is mainly obligation’s distribution. Four institutional instruments may be used to control environmental risk: market forces, government regulation, torts or common law liability, and social insurance. Each instrument has own advantages and disadvantages, limitation. These four institutional instruments are best viewed as discrete alternatives, but rather as part of a web of societal responses to environmental problems. Which one is better depends upon the nature of environmental problem. Institutional choice experiences two steps. The first is deciding which one is proper, torts or common law liability, or regulation. The second step is deciding which regulatory instrument is proper if governmental regulation is adopted. In second step, at least three important questions must be confronted: (l)what conduct or activity should be targeted? (2)On what basis should judgments be made about how that conduct should be altered? (3)What form of regulation should be employed in an effort to alter that conduct. However, institutional choice, namely, designing obligations on private party should obey efficient principle, but environmental objective and who should burden obligations should be decided by justice.更多还原