【作者】 邓文莉；

【导师】 陈汉光；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 法学理论， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 随着环境问题的日益严重，用刑法手段保护环境已经成为人们的共识，然而在认定环境犯罪的诸多具体问题上，全世界的分歧较大。由于环境问题的长期性、累积性、复杂性和隐蔽性的特点，环境犯罪主观罪过的认定难度较大，目前国内外尚无统一的认定标准。无过失责任在环境犯罪中的适用问题亦存在不同的观点。鉴于环境犯罪的主观罪过是区分罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪以及正确量刑的重要要件。本文结合国内外学者的一些观点及大陆法系和英美法系环境犯罪主观罪过的立法和实务，对环境犯罪的主观罪过问题进行了分析和研究。 “环境犯罪”是目前国际上通行的说法，然而，学者们对其内涵的理解不一致，没有一个统一的概念。本文评析了一些具有代表性的国内外学者关于环境犯罪的概念，指出环境犯罪作为一类罪，在界定其概念时，应抽绎出此类犯罪与其它类罪不同的特征加以表述，而无须将其所有的具体犯罪构成——阐述。在分析了环境犯罪与其它类罪不同特征的基础上，将环境犯罪定义为自然人或单位违反环境保护法律、法规，污染或不合理地开发利用环境资源，侵犯公民的环境权益和国家的环境资源管理秩序，造成或可能造成公私财产的重大损失、人身伤亡的严重后果以及生态资源破坏，触犯刑律，应受刑罚处罚的行为。 不同形式的主观罪过反映了行为人的主观恶性的不同，所受到的刑法否定性评价和谴责程度也不同。因此，科学认定环境犯罪主观罪过形式对于正确地定罪和量刑具有重要的理论和现实意义，它是区分罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的标准，罪过不同，量刑亦轻重不同。 从世界范围看，对于环境犯罪的主观罪过形式，尽管各国刑法规定的方式或表述的方法不同，但大多数国家都将故意或过失作为环境犯罪必备的主观要件，只有极个别国家在立法列中规定只需客观事实即可成立环境犯罪。以日本、德国、奥地利为代表的多数大陆法系国家的环境刑事立法均规定，行为人构成环境犯罪主观上必须具备故意或过失的要件，仅有违法事实不能构成刑罚的使用，即不适用无过失责任。只有以法国为代表的少数大陆法系国家在极个别法规中规定只要有客观上的污染事实，就应进行刑罚处罚，但立法界和实务界存有分政。以英国和美国为代表的英美法系在环境犯罪的主观罪过上，一般都遵循“无罪过即无刑罚”的原则，无过失责任只规定在个别法规中，并没有作为普遍的归责原则。同时对无过失责任的适用一般限制在轻罪(违警罪)的范围，并限制刑罚量。近年来，无过失责任在英美法系国家亦趋于衰落，有一种用疏忽责任代替无过失责任的趋势。由于我国刑法对环境犯罪的罪过形式均未作出明文规定，因此在环境犯罪的罪过认识上存在分歧。 首先，在环境犯罪主观罪过的认定标准上，存在不同的观点。有的认为应以“行为”为标准;有的认为应以“结果”为标准;有的则主张采取“双重标准”。我们认为，对于结果犯，认定的标准是行为人对危害环境结果所持的心理态度，而且应当是相对具体的危害环境结果，批判了“抽象预见说”的观点，认为此观点忽视了人的主观能动性;违反了刑法关于“过失犯罪，法律有规定的才处罚”的规定，违背了刑法限制过失犯罪打击面的立法精神。对于行为犯，可以以危害环境的行为作为认定的标准。另外，根据传统刑法理论，在环境犯罪中，判断行为人的预见能力，应根据其技术水平、业务水平，并根据有关行政或业务管理法规规定的注意义务。结合国外学者提出的“结果规避义务”理论，提出应根据危害环境结果发生的可能性大小确定注意义务内容的标准和根据可能发生的危害环境结果的程度大小确定注意义务负担程度的标准的主张。 其次，结合我国的立法和司法实践，论证了污染环境犯罪不包含直接故意的罪过形态，阐明直接故意污染环境，造成重大环境污染事故的犯罪行为在性质上己不再是直接侵犯环境权益，间接损害财产、人身法益的环境犯罪，而应以直接侵害不特定的财产和人身法益的危害公共安全罪定处。 由于环境问题具有长期性、累积性和隐蔽性以及形成原因上的复杂性等特点，要证明行为人的主观罪过常常存有比较大的困难。为了诉讼的便利，有学者提出应借鉴和吸收英美刑法中无过失责任的理论和实践，在环境犯罪中适用无过失责任。本文从无过失责任的含义和历史来由进行阐述，指出绝对的无过失责任实质上是古代客观责任的“现代版”，在我国，缺乏实体法的认同;而相对的无过失责任在我国刑事诉讼法严格遵循“任何人不得被迫在刑事案件中自证其罪”、“举证责任只能由起诉机关承担”的原则下，亦没有程序法的依据。第二，刑罚决非遏制环境污染或破坏行为的最佳途径。第主，适用无过失责任势必干扰我国的经济建设。第四，诉讼的根本价值在于追求公正，以诉讼效率为名，实行无过失责任，实际上是本末倒置。总之，从我国目前的立法和社会发展状况以及刑罚作用的局限性和法律的公平追求等原因，决定在我国环境犯罪中不宜适用无过失责任。 文章最后指出，必须科学地认定环境犯罪的主观罪过，决不能更多还原

【Abstract】 As environmental problems are becoming more and more serious, it is known to all that criminal law is one of ways used to protect the environment. There are many different ideas about the details of environmental crime among the scholars. The characteristics of environmental problems make it difficult to determine the subjective guilt of environmental crime. Scholars have different opinions on the application of liability without fault. This thesis, combining some scholars’ideas with the legislation of subjective guilt about environmental crime in continental law system, analyses the subjective guilt of environmental crime.This thesis lists some representative definitions of environmental crime and points out that the unique characteristics are the most important to be described. On the basis of analyzing the different kinds of features between environmental crime and others, this thesis defines the environmental crime as follows: the act of breaking environmental protection laws and regulations leads to destroy environment and it should be punished by criminal punishment.Different forms of subjective guilt show the differences of actor’ subjective malice. To determine the forms of subjective guilt is very important to determine crime correctly.In most continental law countries, such as Japan, German and Austria, it is regarded as a fact that actors are found guilty only when they act deliberately, that means liability without fault is not adopted. Only few continental law countries such as France, determine environmental crime as long as pollution actually takes place and punishment should be put into use. When dealing with the subjective-guilt of environmental crime, common-law countries follow the principle that "Et actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea and liability without fault is adopted by individual law, not regarded as universal principle.Different opinions of environmental crime result from the fact that noclear definition is given by our criminal law. Some scholars regard "act" as the standard. Some think that "result" is the standard. Others think that both "act" and "result" should be taken into account. We should base the consequential offense on the result and the behavioral offense on the act. According to the traditional theory of Criminal law, we judge the actor’s precaution ability by his technology, working ability, as well as some administrative rules and regulations. This thesis .claims that we should determine the standard of attention duty in accordance with not only the possibility of the result of destroying environment but also the seriousness of destroying environment.Secondly, combining legislation and judicial practice, this thesis expounds that crime of environmental pollution does not include the direct intention.After expounding the meaning of liability without fault and its history, the thesis points out that absolute objective liability is a modern copy of ancient objective liability. In our country, the substantive law is not authentic. Panalty is not the best way to prevent environment from being polluted and destroyed.Thirdly, our economic construction will be destroyed if liability without fault is put into use.Fourthly, the aim of lawsuit is to pursue justice instead of efficient lawsuit. It is putting a cart before a horse to make liability without fault come into force.In the end, the thesis points out we should not neglect the justice of law, but determine the subjective guilt of environmental crime scientifically.更多还原