风险预防原则在我国环境法领域的有限适用研究

根据风险预防原则的含义与判断标准,我国应在气候变化、生物多样性保护、转基因食品安全等三个环境法领域适用风险预防原则。这既是我国在上述领域环境问题特殊性的要求,又是我国应尽的国际义务。     

我国环境保护中风险预防原则的缺失及完善

科学技术的迅速发展给人类带来了惊喜的同时也带来了巨大的风险.在环境领域,科技发展的并发症已经使生态遭受严重破坏而难以回复,而潜在的环境风险则使人们感到害怕而又无奈.正是在这样的背景下,为了应对具有科学不确定性环境问题,风险预防原则应运而生.本文通过研究外国环境法中关于风险预防原则的法律制度和实践,分析了我国环境法中风险预防原则存在的问题,提出了完善该原则的相关建议.     

共同但有区别的责任是国际环境法的具体原则

对于国际环境法中＂共同但有区别的责任＂,有的学者把他归为国际环境法的基本概念,有的学者将其确立为国际环境法的基本原则。区分国际环境法的基本原则和具体原则的标准是这一原则适用于国际环境法律所有领域还是只适用于国际环境法的特定领域。实际上,＂共同但有区别的责任＂是在保护国际环境合作方面进行义务分配的一个具体原则。在适用范围上,共同但有区别的责任并不适用于国际环境法的所有领域,环境损害赔偿领域就不适用;并且这一原则稳定程度较低,存在着一个上位原则——国际合作原则。     

浅析WTO框架内的风险预防原则——以《动植物卫生检疫措施协定》第5．7条为视角

作为国际环境法基本原则之一的风险预防原则,其精髓在于强调当有环境风险发生或发生之虞时,不应以缺乏科学确定性为由而限制必要措施的施行。在WTO框架内,风险预防原则主要体现在《SPS协定》第5．7条。实践中,第5．7条的适用需同时遵循程序及实质两方面的要件。从这些要件可以看出,《SPS协定》第5．7条不是单纯地反映了风险预防原则,而是对风险预防原则的具体化,其所规定的临时性措施是对风险预防原则具体适用的一项风险预防措施。WTO应以《SPS协定》第5．7条为基础,与国际环境法共同发展风险预防原则。这样既有利于贸易自由化对环境所造成的风险获得更有效的管理,又有利于WTO与国际环境法的协调。     

国际环境法基本原则初探——兼与潘抱存先生商榷

确定国际环境法的基本原则有两个标准,一是以国际法的基本原则为基础,二是体现国际环境法自身的特点。据此,国际环境法应包括以下基本原则:国际资源开发主权权利和不损害国外环境责任原则、可持续发展原则、共同但有区别的责任原则、损害预防原则、风险预防原则、国际合作原则。     

论风险预防原则的适用要件——以国际环境法为背景

作为国际环境法的基本原则之一,风险预防原则已经在许多国际环境协定中得到了直接的规定或间接的反映。在适用风险预防原则的过程中,需要遵循以下三个方面的要件:1.适用风险预防原则的前提条件,包括风险阀值和科学不确定性的确定;2.依据风险预防原则进行决策的过程中需遵循的要件,包括成本效益分析以及根据不同的风险水平采取适当的预防措施;3.执行风险预防措施的过程中需遵循的要件,包括对措施的后期审查及相关科学信息的收集。     

新时代我国环境法风险预防原则的制度建构

风险社会背景下,风险预防原则在国际环境法领域的国际习惯法地位逐渐清晰并巩固。为了维护国家生态安全,实现生态环境治理现代化,提升我国生态环境法律体系的协调性与科学性,实现当前生态环境法治改革的逻辑自洽,亟需将风险预防原则确立为我国环境法的基本原则。未来的环境法典中应当明文规定风险预防原则,其展开宜采总分模式。风险预防原则的三种强度版本是相辅相成、彼此衔接的有机统一体,灵活适用于不同类型的、严重的或不可逆转的且发生可能性应达到“合理怀疑”程度的生态环境风险活动。协商合作型生态环境风险规制模式耦合科学理性与社会理性于法律理性之中,将实体上生态环境风险共识的形成纳入程序性的法律制度过程,是生态环境风险规制现实可行的路径选择。     

预防原则在国际法中的演进和地位

预防原则是国际环境法的主要原则和国际环境政策的核心所在。它起源于国内环境法,在国际法上的演进也从海洋环境领域发展到其他领域。它被数十项多边环境条约所采纳且为其中重要的原则,不仅对成员方有拘束力,而且采取预防原则的国家实践是划一的,笔者认为预防原则已经成为国际习惯法的一项原则。     

从法理到实务:谈国际环境法基本原则的构建

国际环境法基本原则是国际环境法大厦的基石,也是国际环境法研究的逻辑起点。国际环境法的基本原则在逻辑上首先必须符合法的基本原则的范畴;其次,应当是国际法基本原则的下位概念;最后,必须体现国际环境法自身的特点。本文从内涵到外延对国际环境法的基本原则进行了科学重构,以期对国际环境法基本原则研究提供参考。     

我国环境基本法中基本原则的立法探析

环境法基本原则对环境法体系建设和司法实践具有重要的指导作用.我国环境法基本原则是学者在参考和借鉴国际环境法基本原则的基础上,结合我国环境保护立法归纳概括得出的.由于没有较高位阶的立法规定,现行环境法基本原则存在表述不一致、内容不确定、无法充分体现环境法价值理念等缺陷.纵观外国环境基本法大都有环境法基本原则的专门规定.在全球环境法形成的大趋势下,环境法基本原则的内容也呈现出明显的趋同性;而不同的法律文化和环境法治背景又使得各国环境法基本原则立法技术极具个性化.目前,具有我国环境基本法地位的《环境保护法》正面临修改,利用这一契机,在学习和借鉴外国环境法基本原则的基础上通过立法明确我国环境法基本原则是环境基本法修改的重要任务之一.     

The legal regime for application of the precautionary principle in India: future directions for the GM regulatory regime

The precautionary principle is one of the most contentious principles in contemporary international legal developments. The very fact that it is a principle of international environmental law has been questioned by many legal scholars. However, this does not take away the fact that the precautionary principle continues to be applied widely across sectors both internationally and nationally. The nature and scope of its application has varied widely according to the context and sector within which it has been applied. The central issue which this article seeks to address is the regulatory and the policy making space that is available to the Government of India in the context of the obligations as undertaken under the Cartagena Protocol and under various other international treaties. The regulatory space would also be affected by the domestic legal developments across sectors in which the principle has been applied. India’s recent decision on the large-scale commercialisation of Bt-Cotton has already created much debate regarding its appropriateness given the realities of Indian farm practices. More specifically, it has also led to a rethinking of the role and application of the precautionary principle in addressing these realities. Considering that the Indian policy on biotechnology is currently being drafted, it is important to look into the scope of applying the precautionary principle in taking any decision on genetically modified organisms (GMO) in terms of their distribution of risks, incorporating the social and equity impacts of such decisions.

GENERAL AND PARTICULAR APPLYING ELEMENTS OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

In the context of WTO dispute settlement, the precautionary principle is a predominant concept, in the face of serious risks and scientific uncertainty, that is often characterized as “better safe than sorry.” Although the precautionary principle appears in various treaties, declarations, and even laws, it is often formulated in abstract terms, leading to the great ambiguity of its primary elements. The Panel and the Appellate Body always avoid discussing the precautionary principle in WTO cases due to its obscure definition. On March 13, 2012, the United States, the European Union, and Japan each requested consultations with China as China’s measures that made restrictions on the exportation of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum had been in conflict with their national interest. After examining the matter at issue, the Panel and the Appellate Body rejected China’s arguments regardless of its repeated claims about its consideration of environmental protection. With the case as the starting point, this article focuses on the precautionary principle and explores its status and elements, in order to establish a two-dimensional model of the precautionary principle that is applicable in international trade.     

Privacy and the precautionary principle

The precautionary principle – which implies that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing protective measures – has been adopted as a standard of environmental and health protection in international and European legislation. This article offers an overview of the precautionary principle as a legal standard applicable to European privacy and data protection legislation. For this reason, it takes particularly into account the guidelines of this legislation as well as the privacy impact assessment framework, raised by the European Commission through the Recommendation on Radio-Frequency Identification applications. In brief, the article stresses the role of the precautionary principle in improving privacy protection through liability, prudence and transparency.     

Interpretation and Application of the Precautionary Principle: Australia's Contribution

Australia has been a leading jurisdiction in the adoption of the precautionary principle, with widespread policy and legislative incorporation. This has paved the way for the development of a substantial jurisprudence on the interpretation and application of the principle. The international derivation of the version of the precautionary principle adopted in Australia, together with the wide range of areas in which the principle has been applied, for example biodiversity protection, environmental impact assessment, climate change, public health, etc., means that judicial consideration of the principle in Australia has the potential to form a body of common law with national and international application. Accordingly, this article reviews the adoption, interpretation and application of the precautionary principle in Australian environmental law, with a view to drawing out the general lessons this experience offers for interpretation of the principle in other, international settings .     

国际生态环境问题及其对我国环境立法的启示

当今一系列的生态环境问题 ,包括生物多样性锐减、森林面积减少、土地资源状况恶化、水环境恶化、气候变暖等已日趋国际化 ,严重危及到整个人类的生存。这些问题往往是在各国国内进行的国际法未加禁止行为造成的。在这样的情况下 ,本文指出了当今我国生态环境保护立法方面的缺陷 ,其中涉及到管理体制、立法意识、现行法律本身等问题。面对这些问题 ,文章指出我国生态环境立法要加快与国际接轨 ,树立风险防范原则的立法理念等一系列措施 ,以达到可持续发展的目的。     

国际条约在不服渔业行政处罚所提起的行政诉讼程序上的优先适用

为了回答由一则不服中国渔业行政处罚而提起行政诉讼的案例提出的中国领域外形成的证据是否应当经过公证认证的问题,有必要审视在中国法律框架内国际条约优先适用的制度。国际条约优先适用的原则不仅适用于中国实体法领域,而且在民事或行政诉讼法的领域同样适用。作为下位法的行政诉讼证据规则应当让位于国际条约的规定。中美谅解备忘录就是这样的双边国际条约,考量涉案美方案卷能否成为行政诉讼证据,应当根据该备忘录的规定。经过中美执法部门证据交接美方案卷成为中方执法证据之一,符合备忘录的要求,具有证据上的可采性,应当被依法采信为行政诉讼证据。     

EU和WTO预防原则解释和适用比较研究

预防原则是国际法上重要的法律原则,其法律地位存在很大争议,不同国际组织对其认可和适用的程度不尽相同。欧盟的预防原则理念领先于其他国家和地区,在区域内的实践呈扩大的趋势。WTO框架内预防原则的实践则发展缓慢,由于宗旨的不同和背后利益集团的博弈,与欧盟的预防原则立法和实践存在较大差异。     

外资征收与环境保护——不补偿环境征收之合法性刍议

由于环境保护关系到人类整体和国际社会共同利益,在外资征收的立法与实践中环境保护和外资保护应予一体化考虑,但现状却反映出外资私益优先于环境公益的倾向。从建立国际经济新秩序的角度看,为使发展中国家不致因环保因素付出不必要的代价,环境征收不应具有补偿性。而且,不补偿环境征收合法性根植于污染者付费原则、预防原则、治安权例外以及国际环境法义务优先原则。