论后代人作为环境权主体的不合理性

国外社会和一些国家已经对环境权有了明确的立法,对后代人作为环境权主体给予了最权威的认可。即赋予未出生的人类后代以享受美好环境的权利,从而以此权利来限制现世人的行为及附加义务。我国环境法发展的近几十年中,法律并没有对环境权进行明确规定。近年受国外环境法学的影响,我国很多学者基于代际公平理论也将后代人也列为环境权主体。虽然此理论开创了新的视角,丰富了环境权主体的内容。但其有违法学的基本概念,缺乏现实性和可行性,难以让人信服。     

环境法研究的未来指向:环境行为——以本位之争为视角

以研究路径的选择为视角,环境法的研究主要分为权利本位和义务本位两个派别。这两个派别主要就环境权主体合理性问题和法律规则设置路径选择的合理性方面展开针锋相对的辩驳,辩驳却没有对环境法实践性这一根本要求予以应有的重视。权利本位与义务本位之争背后所体现的价值观的选择、研究立场的选择以及研究路径的选择问题,都为二者提出了一个研究指向的要求———环境行为。针对环境行为进行研究是解决环境问题的必然选择,而进行环境行为研究的前提就是实现环境行为的法律表达。     

义务本位论、权利本位论和环境公共利益——以乌托邦现实主义为视角

当下环境法学的义务本位论和权利本位论分别体现了政府和公民的单方面愿景,而这两种理论都在一定程度上误解了环境公共利益。在乌托邦现实主义视角中,环境公共利益既是一种来源于社会事实的共同愿景,也是一种立基于哲学反思的共同善。环境法是维护和增进环境公共利益的法律部门。以环境公共利益为内容的环境权利涵盖个体权利和集体权利两种形态。环境义务来源于、服务于并且从属于环境权利。     

环境立法理念辨析：可持续发展、环境权与环境保护义务

以使用环境为目的的可持续发展理念和相继的环境权理念不能根本解决环境法的效力来源问题。环境法规制的是损害环境的行为,其规制人类环境行为的道德基础不是环境的内在价值,而是良心这种纯善利他的生命情感。生态中心主义“环境的权利”意义上的环境权存在主体问题,人类中心主义“对环境的权利”意义上的环境权因权利的示选和排他功能而走向保护环境的反面。从环境权转向环境保护义务是破解环境法效力来源的关键。环境立法应当以禁止损害环境的环境保护义务和无害使用环境的环境使用权利相统一为基本理念。     

法官独立--司法公正之根本前提和司法独立应有之义

法官独立乃司法独立应有之意,对于保障司法公正意义重大.针对目前法官权利、义务不一致,法官权利被侵犯的事情时有发生,重新审视现有法律、法规对于司法独立的规定极为必要.为此,恢复司法独立的本来涵义,从制度上真正实现法官的身份独立、实质独立、外部独立、内部独立,对于加强和改善党的领导,构筑和谐、公正的社会主义社会意义重大.因为只有公正的社会才可能是和谐的社会.     

生态马克思主义的异化消费观与环境法的反思

生态马克思主义的异化消费观揭示了消费与人的真实需求的背离,消费也逐渐由手段变成目的。而在生态危机的背景下,那些不负担环境成本、超出环境承载能力的、不可持续的消费方式同样也是异化消费的表现形式之一。异化消费的蔓延应当引起环境法对自身规制对象和权利义务配置等方面的反思和调整,这些反思和调整应当包括：将消费者和企业一样明确视为环境法的规制对象、均衡配置环境法上的企业环境权利和义务、消费者环境义务的法律化。     

环境法调整机制变革中之政府环境义务嬗变

环境法调整机制变革即政府环境义务的嬗变。政府环境义务在性质上由物文主义到人文主义的嬗变,明确了环境法调整机制变革的人的利益保护最大化价值追求。政府环境义务在内容上由消极义务到积极义务、由保护义务到给付义务的嬗变,满足了环境法调整机制变革对政府环境职能拓展的要求。政府环境义务在履行方式上由一元型到多元分散型的嬗变,适应了环境法调整机制多中心变革对发展政府环境治理手段的需要。     

试论代际生育平等权的社会权属性

代际生育平等权是指由于国家政策和法律对公民生育权的限制,导致不同代的公民生育权的不平等,因而其享有要求国家构建科学合理的保障与救济制度的权利.发生学视角下,代际生育平等权与社会权一样,皆以外在的“剥夺”为发生前提;保障方式上,两者皆有“明知不可为而为之”的特点,强调国家作为义务和贯彻“物质优先原则”;在权利主体方面,两者也具有相似性,即理论预设上两者的权利主体皆是全体公民,而现实权利主体却是部分公民.代际生育平等权具有社会权属性,是社会权子类型之一,这种界定极具现实意义.     

论生态文明视野下环境利益的法律保障

在生态文明社会背景下,环境利益亟待纳入法律保障范围,以确保人类社会的可持续发展。而若想实现对环境利益的全面保障,有赖于整个法律体系即宪法、环境法以及其他传统部门法的有效的分工、配合,其中环境法是以保障环境利益为其根本追求的独立的部门法。为法律所保障的环境利益分为"强保障环境利益"与"弱保障环境利益",构建生态文明社会既要关注环境权利、环境权力以及相应的环境义务对"强保障环境利益"的保障,也要关注对"弱保障环境利益"保障机制的研究。     

论国际环境法的可持续发展原则

可持续发展原则是国际环境法的一项发展中的基本原则，是贯穿于国际环境法的一条主线。本文结合建立国际经济新秩序和转变全球经济发展模式，对这一原则的基本内容即代际公平、代内公平、可持续利用和环境与发展一体化作了比较全面和深入的探讨     

论国际投资仲裁中非投资国际义务的适用进路

国际投资仲裁案件中已涉及到国家在环境、人类自然与文化遗产保护和人权等方面以维护公共利益为目的的非投资国际义务。如何在国际投资仲裁中适用这些国际义务,协调、解决它们与国家投资条约义务间的冲突,有两种进路:一是适用有关国际法规则;二是适用国际投资仲裁实践中逐渐出现的规则。通过这两种进路,可以使维护公共利益的非投资国际义务在国际仲裁中得以合理地适用,实现维护外国投资者财产权益与公共利益间的适当平衡。     

NGO Standing in the European Court of Justice – Does the Aarhus Regulation Open the Door?

This article assesses whether the new European Community (EC) Regulation applying the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to EC institutions and bodies provides non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with access to justice in compliance with the EC's obligations under the Aarhus Convention. We conclude that, notwithstanding the uncertainty over the wording finally adopted in the Aarhus Regulation, the procedural rights granted to NGOs in the Regulation brings NGOs within the standing requirements of the EC Treaty, such that they can seek justice in the European courts. This is a significant development in the field of environmental democracy and procedural rights to the environment – including the ability to seek enforcement of the right to a healthy environment.     

International Law-Making in the Field of Sustainable Development:The Unequal Competition Between Development and the Environment

Since 1992, the tension between environmental and developmental concerns has been a central element in the international law-making process which has resulted in the adoption of various treaties and international instruments in the field of sustainable development. These instruments show that reconciliation between environment and development has not been easy to achieve. The balance seems to tip in favour of the protection of the environment. This paper explores how some of the "well-established" principles and concepts of international environmental law, as well as some new developments in this field, may have contributed to the tendency of excluding conditionality and equitable considerations from the elaboration and application of an increasing number of obligations taken by States in the field of environmental protection. It is contended here that environmental protection has developed to a certain extent at the expense of international economic law relating to development. This has been an incidental consequence of, at least, three elements: the movement toward more participation of transnational civil society in the international environmental law-making process; the use of a rights and duties language which helps to mask the developmental aspects sometimes involved in the prevention of environmental damage; and, the attractiveness of the establishment of a right to a healthy environmental.     

Towards a global ‘child friendly’ juvenile justice?

The impact of globalisation on juvenile justice is increasingly conceptualised with reference to neo-liberal governance and the intensification of ‘new punitiveness’. Whatever the merits of such analyses, they have the effect of marginalising, if not completely overlooking, the extent to which international human rights instruments might serve to neutralise and/or mediate punitive currents. Indeed, it might be argued that the commitment – repeatedly expressed in official discourse – to both protect and promote the human rights of children in conflict with the law has itself come to comprise a discursive and tangible dimension of global child governance. Key signifiers of this phenomenon – at the global level – include a corpus of interrelated human rights conventions, standards, treaties and rules, formally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, whilst at the European level authoritative rights-informed guidelines on ‘child friendly justice’, ratified by the Council of Europe, are similarly representative. Against this backdrop, this article seeks to investigate the degree to which individual nation states receive and respond to their human rights and ‘child friendly justice’ obligations. Whilst recognising the mediating capacities of formal human rights instruments, we aim to critically interrogate the relations between globalised rhetoric and localised reality; between the promise of international rights discourse on the one hand and the limitations of territorial jurisdictional implementation on the other.     

Can the Human Rights Bodies be Used to Produce Interim Measures to Protect Environment-Related Human Rights?

International environmental law does not protect individuals as such. On the other hand, human rights do not formally encompass the right to a healthy environment. This article argues that human rights bodies are suitable forums to protect environment-related human rights. They can do so by producing interim measures to prevent States' actions or inactions towards the environment from infringing on human rights, even if the harmful character of those actions is uncertain. It is demonstrated that the recourse to the precautionary principle is possible to achieve such anticipatory protection and is supported by recent developments in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice. In particular, the article shows that human rights bodies can develop interrelationships and interdependency between rights of different normative values in different areas of international law that will lead to equitable interim measures prescribing positive obligations that are reasonable and appropriate.     

A Legal Conventionalist Approach to Pollution

There are no moral entitlements with respect to pollution prior to legal conventions that establish them, or so I will argue. While some moral entitlements precede legal conventions, pollution is part of a category of harms against interests that stands apart in this regard. More specifically, pollution is a problematic type of harm that creates liability only under certain conditions. Human interactions lead to harm and to the invasion of others’ space regularly, and therefore we need an account of undue harm as a basis of assigning legal protections (rights) and obligations (duties) to different agents, which creates standards for holding those agents responsible for harm. Absent such positive standards with respect to pollution at the domestic or international level, it does not make sense to hold agents responsible. This fact has two fundamental implications. First, contrary to what some defenders of environmental justice argue, we cannot hold people responsible for polluting without a system of legal rights in place that assigns entitlements, protections, and obligations, and second, contrary to what opponents of environmental regulation claim, the lack of moral entitlements to pollute creates room for quite extensive legal restrictions on people’s ability to pollute for the sake of the environment and human health. Indeed the scope of those restrictions is wide and open-ended.     

Environment Rights versus Environmental Wrongs: Forum over Substance?

Beginning with the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, there have been a number of international proclamations of a human right to a clean environment, both implicit and explicit. The highpoint of this movement towards an internationally recognized substantive right to a clean environment came with the 1992 Rio Declaration. This movement has continued forward in regional and specialized regimes – for example with respect to water and indigenous rights. There has also been a parallel move towards recognition of what can be considered procedural rights, which require public access to information, participation in decision making, and access to justice in environmental matters. This article argues that further development and use of these procedural rights will not only provide opportunities to protect environmental rights, but can also further the development of a substantive right to a clean environment.     

环境权立法的困境与出路

环境权产生于环境危机时代 ,一开始就面临许多困境。实际上 ,环境权体现的是公民与国家之间的权利义务关系 ,即公民的环境权和国家的环境职责。它已经不同于法学界过去惯常所宣称的权利义务的一致性和对等性 ,而体现为权利义务的错位和不对等性。我国应该走环境权宪法化、具体化和公民权化的道路。     

Human rights and the peace process in Northern Ireland

The notion that the abuse of human rights leads to conflict has been recognised by commentators and international legal instruments. Human rights activists in Northern Ireland have long argued that the failure on the part of the government to comply with its international obligations to protect rights has exacerbated the conflict. This essay is predicated on the thesis that, as issues of justice and the abuse of rights were central to the genesis of the conflict, they must also be the seminal strands in the search for peace. By way of an audit measured against the proposals of human rights activists and the recommendations of international institutions charged with assessing UK compliance with human rights treaties, the essay examines the changes in the human rights situation in Northern Ireland since the declarations of the ceasefires. The discussion draws on the experience of other jurisdictions to support its central thesis. Finally, the reasons for the UK reluctance to adopt a more rights-centred approach to peace negotiations are outlined, and the practical benefits which would result from such an approach is considered. Committee on the Administration of Justice The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CAJ.     

Accessibility to infrastructure and disability rights in Nigeria: an analysis of the potential of the discrimination against persons with disability (prohibition) act 2018

A viable way to establish a sense of inclusion for the physically challenged in Nigeria like elsewhere is to provide a sustainable infrastructural plan that integrates the utility concerns of the disabled. Overcoming the difficulties faced by people with disabilities requires interventions to remove environmental and social barriers. This paper examines the right of persons with disability to public vehicular and infrastructural use. It focuses on the recently enacted Discrimination against Persons with Disability (Prohibition) Act, 2018 as well as other international human rights instruments from which Nigeria derives her international obligations. It is observed that the Nigerian society is still unfriendly to the disabled as public infrastructure is constructed without considerations for the disabled.