我国气候变化立法的缺陷及其对策分析

我国气候变化立法存在着一些较为明显的缺陷,这在一定程度上制约着我国温室气体排放控制战略的实施。目前,气候变化问题已经成为威胁人类生存和发展的一大国际环境问题。温室气体的排放控制战略是《气候变化框架公约》所确立的应对气候变化问题的根本举措。我国应当按照《气候变化框架公约》和《京都议定书》的法律要求,健全和完善气候变化立法以进一步控制温室气体的排放量,从而为全球气候变化问题的应对做出更大的贡献。     

美国促进低碳发展的法律演进

一、自下而上：地方气候创新行动 长期以来，作为世界上人均温室气体排放量最大的国家，美国在应对气候变化问题上一直消极对待国际气候变化谈判、设法逃避自己的历史责任。从1997年《京都议定书》达成到2007年《联合国气候变化框架公约》第14次缔约国大会，美国政府始终拒绝承担任何强制性温室气体减排义务，导致美国成为迄今唯一没有签署《京都议定书》的发达国家。相对于联邦政府的消极作为，     

温室气体排放行为的规制路径——以环境公益诉讼为主要视角

在“双碳”目标引领下,控制温室气体排放是我国积极应对全球气候变化的重要任务。为了增强企业和社会各界控制温室气体排放的意识和自觉性,规制温室气体超量排放行为,行政权需发挥主导作用。在行政权无法对排放单位形成有效威慑和规制的情况下,司法权亦应发挥能动性。在排放单位因未按时足额清缴碳排放配额而受到行政处罚,且在行政机关多次督促下仍未作出改善,致使下一履行周期的碳排放配额亦无法按时足额清缴的情况下,此时的排放行为可能对大气环境公共利益具有重大损害风险。就此,可探索通过环境民事公益诉讼,利用虚拟治理成本法得出与损害后果相适应的生态环境损害数额,从而推动温室气体超量排放单位停止侵害,采取有效措施减少温室气体的排放量,并承担赔礼道歉、赔偿损失等民事公益侵权责任,确保排放单位的减排义务落到实处。     

论气候变化对人权国际保护的影响

气候变化与人权国际保护都是当代国际法的热点问题,全球性、长期性与政治性是二者的共同特征。气候变化对人类社会和自然界的影响是多层次的,而它对人权国际保护的影响涉及国家安全、人道主义问题、发展权、健康权以及国际关系的调整等各个方面。中国作为全球温室气体排放大国,应转变观念,从战略高度重视气候变化问题;同时,还要加强国际合作,重视应对气候变化中的发展权,并加强与气候变化有关的法制建设。     

气候变化背景下的侵权责任法嬗变

气候变化主要是指由于人为原因所引起的温室气体排放所导致的全球气温上升.其中,化石燃料排放的温室气体和森林等自然资源遭受破坏是气候变化的主要原因.针对环境危机,应扩大侵权责任法保护的权益范围;在发挥侵权责任法填补性责任作用的同时,重视侵权责任法的预防性责任、惩罚性责任及修复性责任的适用;确立更严格的环境侵权责任规则;建立侵权责任社会化救济机制.     

气候变化背景下外国投资者与政府争端的解决——以我国双边投资协定为例

我国签订的双边投资协定中一般都规定了投资者与东道国政府间投资争端的解决方式,尤其是晚近我国所签订的双边投资协定多数允许投资者将争端提交国际仲裁。但是,在目前全球应对气候变化背景下,作为温室气体排放大国,我国有义务控制和减少温室气体的排放,采取相应的环境规制措施,这些环境规制措施可能会损害或影响到外国投资者在我国的利益。根据双边投资协定,外国投资者可能会将这些争端提交国际仲裁,我国有可能被国际仲裁庭裁定为此对外国投资者承担相应的赔偿责任。面对新形势,我国必须重新审视双边投资协定中投资者与东道国投资争端解决方式的相关规定。     

二氧化碳捕捉与封存法律问题研究

全球气候变化作为重大热点问题越来越受到国际社会的普遍关注。气候变化不仅是全球环境问题,也是重大的发展问题。世界各国近年来共同致力于减少温室气体排放相关的科学研究和技术开发,力求从技术、经济、政策、法律等层面寻求长期有效的解决方式。     

人权法语境下的气候变化损害责任:虚幻或现实

由人类活动导致的气候变化不仅影响全球生态系统,而且对包括生命权、健康权、财产权在内的各项基本人权的享有和实现构成了严重威胁.在现行多边气候变化体制缺乏损害责任承担机制的情况下,人权法语境下的气候变化损害责任开始进入国际社会的视野.尽管环境损害的人权法救济在实践中已获得了各人权机构的广泛支持,但由于气候变化损害的跨界性和累积性特点,与之相关的人权法责任之构建仍将面临难以逾越的障碍.不过,即便气候变化损害的人权法责任在目前不具有现实可行性,气候变化与人权的挂钩对于多边气候变化体制的发展仍具有积极意义.     

食物权视野下应对气候变化的法律路径

气候变化问题危及粮食安全,破坏食物可及性,并关涉人类的生存与发展。食物权与气候变化问题之间存在着紧密的关联性。《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》第11条规定的食物权内在地要求国家承担减少排放温室气体等最低限度的环境保护义务。构建基于食物权的应对气候变化的法律制度,符合中国的现实需求。气候变化问题的全球性、长期性以及中国发展转型期的特殊性也客观上要求我国应当以保障食物权为基础来构建应对气候变化的法律,从而主动适应与减缓气候变化。     

国际海运温室气体减排法律政策刍议

国际海运温室气体排放正日益引起国际社会的关注。随着全球经济复苏、世界船队规模的扩大,国际海运温室气体排放量已和一些负有减排义务的国家温室气体排放量相当。但由于国际海运未被包括在《京都议定书》中进行温室气体减排的统一管理,目前,国际海运温室气体减排仍仅停留在纸面上。本文从对船舶温室气体减排的形势分析入手,论述了船舶温室气体减排可采取的政策与措施并最终对可实施的减排原则和模式进行了论证。     

China and climate justice: moving beyond statism

China is the largest national source of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution causing climate change. However, despite some rhetorical progress at the 2011 Durban climate conference, it has consistently rejected calls to take on binding targets to reduce its GHG emissions. The Chinese Government has understandably argued that developed states are responsible for the predominant share of historical GHG emissions, have greater capacity to pay for the cost of mitigation, and indeed have an obligation to do so before China is required to take action. However, due to the explosive growth in its GHG emissions, China is now in a position to single-handedly dash any hope of climate stability if its position does not change. On the diplomatic level, other big polluters, particularly the United States, will not enter into new binding agreements to reduce substantially their own GHG emissions without a credible commitment from China. Challenging the “statist” framing of the climate justice, this article explores the possibility for China to take on a leadership role in climate change diplomacy in a way that allows it to maintain its long-standing principled resistance to binding national emissions targets while making meaningful progress toward combating the problem. Action by China’s rapidly growing affluent classes may hold the key to long-term climate stability.     

Analysis of the governance architecture to regulate GHG emissions from international shipping

Despite the substantial and likely increasing contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping and the related adverse impacts on global climate change, GHG emissions from international shipping are yet neither regulated by the Kyoto Protocol, nor through any other legally binding, internationally accepted regulation. This paper is looking into the governance architecture that is currently in place to regulate GHG emissions from international shipping with a view to analyze whether the institutional degree of fragmentation within this architecture is contributing to the current situation where no legally binding, internationally accepted regulation has been set up yet. Following the hypothesis that the degree and the characteristics of governance fragmentation have a crucial impact on the effectiveness and performance of a governance system, this paper focuses on the current architecture of climate change governance in international shipping and the institutional interplay between its actors. Therefore, the analytical framework builds on approaches from international environmental governance, regime theory, institutional interplay, and fragmentation in international governance architectures.     

Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Case on Climate Change Emissions: Judgment Day Comes in Global Warming Litigation

The Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to involve itself in environmental matters, especially those relating to the regulation of releases or emissions of harmful substances. The court has typically been content to allow the legislative branch to fashion appropriate regulations to address environmental issues and for the executive branch to enforce those regulations. The acceptance of certiorari in the Second Circuit's Connecticut v. AEP case was a surprise because it not only involves environmental regulation, but also the common law applicable to public nuisance actions seeking redress for climate change damage allegedly caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The AEP case is shaping up to be a blockbuster in the climate change debate in the United States, and the decision could have broad repercussions in not only future litigation involving climate change, but also GHG legislation and the insurance available to address damage due to weather-related events.     

Coverage for Climate Change: Footing the Bill for Carbon Footprints

Lawsuits against automakers, oil refineries, and power companies to recover damages allegedly attributable to greenhouse gas emissions are being filed across the country, and can present a real and expensive problem to businesses within these industries. This July, Steadfast Insurance Company sued its policyholder, AES, seeking a declaration that there was no coverage under its commercial general liability policy for a global warming lawsuit in which AES was a named defendant. Using the Steadfast litigation as a rubric, this article reviews the current state of climate change litigation, and evaluates some of the issues that may arise when seeking coverage for this litigation.     

Climate Change Meets the Commerce Clause: Obstacles and Alternatives for State and Local Responses to Climate Change

Abstract

Climate change is a global problem resulting from our aggregate emissions. The United States has failed to take significant action on a federal level to address our country’s contributions. There are options available at the state and local levels to reduce emissions and to prepare for the effects of climate change. However, the commerce clause and the doctrine of federal supremacy may bar states and municipalities from adopting those strategies. This article discusses tactics to circumvent those restrictions, and potential changes to commerce clause jurisprudence that would give states and municipalities greater flexibility to act where Congress has not.     

Beyond Kyoto: The EU's Contribution to a More Sustainable World Economy

The EU has been leading the world fight against climate change since the late 1990s. This activism on the international scene has served as a stimulus for a common action against global warming that has, in the last 10 years, become a world referent and the central issue in the EU environmental policy. The most relevant initiative is the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading scheme (ETS), adopted in fulfilment of the Kyoto Protocol. In 2008, the EU adopted a new set of measures on climate and energy for the post‐Kyoto period (2013–2020). This new legal framework, coupled with the provisions introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon and the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, represents the EU's commitment to promote a more sustainable European and world economic model.     

The Alchemists: How the Policies of Brazil and the United States Turned Base Commodities into Black Gold,but at What Cost?

As the world attempts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, new energy alternatives are being explored to replace fossil fuels. One major fuel alternative that is subsidized and now comprises 10–15 percent of the fuel stock used for vehicles is biofuels. Despite lower GHG emissions from biofuels, there is still significant environmental degradation that can result from the production and refinement of biofuels, especially given the insufficiency of the water regulatory regime to manage water depletion and degradation that are occurring in the two largest producers of the feedstock for these fuels—the United States and Brazil.     

论船舶油污损害的损失分担

船舶油污损害损失分担是指由导致油污损害的船舶所有人、石油进口商和船旗国等主体,按照一定的归责原则和赔偿序位,对船舶跨界油污损害的受害者所遭受的损失分担赔偿义务的法律机制。从20世纪60年代末开始,国际社会逐步建立了船舶油污损害损失分担的制度模式,确立了民事责任人的限额民事责任和石油进口方的限额赔偿义务,但没有涉及船旗国的国际赔偿责任。从船舶油污损害损失分担的概念入手,对现行分担船舶油污损害损失的主体及其局限性进行分析,论述建立有船旗国参与的船舶油污损害三级赔偿机制的基本框架及其意义。