生态环境损害赔偿诉讼与环境民事公益诉讼关系实证研究

从对司法实践案例的实证分析来看,我国当前所构建的社会组织提起的环境民事公益诉讼、人民检察院提起的环境民事公益诉讼和环境行政公益诉讼、地方政府作为赔偿权利人提起的生态环境损害赔偿诉讼、人民检察院提起的刑事附带环境民事公益诉讼等诉讼类型,在诉讼程序衔接上存在冲突问题。基于生态环境损害赔偿制度和环境民事公益诉讼制度的性质,赔偿权利人提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼应优先于社会组织提起的环境民事公益诉讼,社会组织对生态损害赔偿制度规定范围外部分的损害环境公共利益的行为,有权提起环境民事公益诉讼,对生态环境损害赔偿诉讼是补充。人民检察院在提起公诉时发现行为人污染或破坏生态环境损害环境公共利益时,应首先通知赔偿权利人并督促赔偿权利人在一定期间内履行与赔偿义务人就生态环境损害赔偿事宜进行磋商及磋商不成提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的职责。没有合理理由,赔偿权利人不提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的,人民检察院有权就同一损害生态环境的行为提起附带环境民事公益诉讼。     

比较法视野下生态环境损害救济的行政主导实质及其启示

生态环境损害修复责任属于公法责任，可以通过行政和司法救济方式实现。考察外国立法和司法实践，生态环境损害救济诸形式均呈现实质行政主导特征。从应然层面，鉴于修复责任的公法属性，在生态环境损害救济的启动和生态环境修复决定内容的形成上，行政机关都应居于主导地位。我国救济方式的顺位和司法救济具体制度设计应遵循有利于行政机关发挥作用的原则。生态环境损害救济方式顺位应该如下：首先运用行政命令，其次适用行政机关提起的生态环境损害赔偿诉讼，最后采用由环保组织或检察机关提起的民事公益诉讼。在环境民事公益诉讼中，为了弥补法院在专业知识上的不足，应授权法院要求行政机关编制生态环境修复方案草案。     

社会组织提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼之质疑——兼论《民法典》第1235条的解释

无论是世界主流立法例，还是从损害的属人性要求出发，社会组织都不得以生态环境受损为由请求污染者直接承担赔偿责任。我国《民法典》虽然在侵权责任编中确立了普通环境侵权和生态环境侵权的二元模式，但是并不意味着社会组织有权提起生态环境损害诉讼。环境公共利益受到侵害之时，应当明确区分为造成社会公众具体损害的情形和仅造成生态环境自身损害的情形。前者可以由社会组织提起环境民事公益诉讼，后者则可以由监管机关提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼等，社会组织对此提起民事公益诉讼缺乏正当性。确立生态环境保护的民事公益诉讼与生态环境损害诉讼二分论，可以明确社会组织参与生态环境保护的路径，也可以赋权社会组织在行政机关不作为时可以提起行政公益诉讼。     

公益诉讼:一半是火焰一半是海水

环境公益诉讼是指与案件并无直接利害关系的个人、单位或其他组织对有环境违法行为的国家机关、单位、组织或个人所提起的诉讼。近几年来,环境公益诉讼因其在避免地方保护主义,监督政府行为,抗争企业的环境违法行为,促进公众参与中所彰显出的积极作用而备受关注。特别是2012年通过的《民事诉讼法修正案》更是我国公益诉讼制度建立史上的一次重大突破。虽然学界正积极探     

论环境民事公益诉讼的检察担当

近年来,人为的环境破坏行为导致自然生态严重恶化的情形屡屡发生.检察机关提起环境民事公益诉讼,可以有效制裁环境损害行为.本文认为,在中国建立环境民事公益诉讼检察担当制度是合理的.虽然在提起环境公益诉讼中,检察机关既作原告,又作法律监督者,但检察机关有能力同时出色地履行双重角色职能.我国民事诉讼立法应确立检察机关在环境公益诉讼中的原告地位,并对诉讼费用问题作出规定,以便更加充分地发挥检察监督职能.     

生态损害赔偿诉讼的本质及相关问题研究——以环境民事公益诉讼为视角的分析

在生态损害赔偿诉讼中,行政机关是针对生态损害诉请义务人赔偿,义务人所应当赔偿的,是污染环境、破坏生态行为造成的生态环境利益的损害,此类诉讼具有明显的公益属性,其本质仍然是民事公益诉讼。另一方面,此类诉讼与社会组织、检察机关提起的民事公益诉讼又存在一些差异,是环境民事公益诉讼中带有一定特殊性的一类诉讼。为环境民事公益诉讼制定的程序规则大部分可适用于此类诉讼。应本着有利于环境公益诉讼开展的原则,处理政府提起生态损害赔偿诉讼与社会组织、检察机关提起的环境民事公益诉讼的关系。     

江苏省无锡市人民检察院诉上海市杨浦区绿化和市容管理局等环境民事公益诉讼案

<正>【案例要旨】检察机关作为公益诉讼起诉人提起的环境民事公益诉讼案件,撤诉的司法审查要件不同于普通民事案件。在明确环境民事公益诉讼案件双方当事人地位平等、重申污染者承担环境修复责任的基础上,对于是否准许撤诉的审查标准应当更加严格。实质审查方面,“所有诉讼请求已实现”的标准应当包括生态环境已经完全修复及不存在将来可能继续发生环境污染和生态破坏的风险;程序审查方面,地方各级检察机关撤回起诉应当履行相应审查批准程序,经最高人民检察院批准撤诉,并经人民法院实质审查符合撤诉标准的,应准予撤诉。     

环境民事公益诉讼案件司法解释出炉

2015年1月6日,最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院关于审理环境民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《解释》)。《解释》共35个条文,主要对社会组织可提起环境民事公益诉讼、环境民事公益诉讼案件可跨行政区划管辖、同一污染环境行为的私益诉讼可搭公益诉讼"便车"、减轻原告诉讼费用负担四方面内容作出规定。     

检察机关提起食品安全民事公益诉讼适用惩罚性赔偿制度若干问题研究

目前以消费者为主体创设的惩罚性赔偿规则难以彰显检察公益诉讼的特殊性，导致各地检察机关提起食品安全民事公益诉讼适用惩罚性赔偿办案实践差异明显，影响法律统一正确实施。为促使检察机关提起食品安全民事公益诉讼适用惩罚性赔偿请求权兼具形式和实质正当，检察机关适用正当性仍有待法律明确授权，适用条件相较于消费者提起的惩罚性赔偿应更加严格，从兼顾损害填补与制裁惩戒双重功能角度出发，应区分与私益诉讼不同衔接情形，优先确保特定受损害消费者的合法权益得到全面维护。     

浅谈提起我国民事公益诉讼的主体

公益诉讼是为纠正公益违法行为、保护公共利益而采取的一项司法救济措施。其在国外已被广泛接受且形成了较为成熟的诉讼制度，但是这种制度在我国尚未得到立法上的认可和理论界的一致认识，因而公益诉讼成为我国诉讼体制中的一个明显缺陷。从国外的经验和我国的国情来看，当前提起我国民事公益诉讼应以检察机关、社会团体（如消费者协会）、普通公民为主体。对于检察机关、其他组织如消费者协会目前已无太大争议，对普通公民作为提起我国民事公益诉讼的主体目前尚有分歧。本文就公民提起民事公益诉讼提出了相关见解。     

Public Diplomacy,Smith-Mundt and the American Public

The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act, is a mostly unknown and widely misunderstood piece of legislation. Revised multiple times, the law bans domestic dissemination of Voice of America and other U.S. international broadcast content in the United States. Presenting government-supported international broadcasting as an example of public diplomacy, this article discusses the long-term misrepresentation of Smith-Mundt's original intent and highlights the consequences of the continuing ban. The article considers prospects for ending the ban and emphasizes potential opportunities presented by its elimination, concluding that ending the ban might eliminate incongruity between American foreign policy goals of democracy promotion and the reality of banned domestic content. Repeal of the ban may also result in unexpected remedies for challenges facing the American media industry and the American public's desire for international news.

The United States government may be the largest broadcaster that few Americans know about. Although its networks reach 100 countries in 59 languages, they are banned from distribution in the United States by a 1948 law devised to prevent the government from turning its propaganda machine on its own citizens. ^{1 1}Mark Landler, A New Voice of America for the Age of Twitter, N.Y. Times, June 7, 2011 at 9. The broadcasters comprising the U.S. international broadcasting operation are the Voice of America (VOA), Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio and TV Marti. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is “a bipartisan agency … that acts as a ‘firewall’ between the U.S. government and international broadcasting entities it funds.” Kim Andrew Elliott, America Calling: A 21st-Century Model, Foreign Service J., Oct. 2010, at 31. When Smith-Mundt was passed in 1948, USIB authority fell under the Department of State. Later, Congress created the United States Information Agency (USIA) to facilitate American public diplomacy operations. After the end of the cold war, Congress dismantled USIA and returned responsibility for American public diplomacy efforts to the Department of State. For an excellent history of the rise and fall of the USIA, see Nicholas J. Cull, The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy 1945–1989 (2008).      

树立公证业公信力形象 促进公证事业健康发展——全国公证队伍教育规范树形象活动动员会综述

随着我国民主法制建设的不断健全和市场经济体制的建立,我国公证事业亦取得长足发展,公证活动已经介入国家经济、政治、文化和社会生活的各个领域,公证制度已经成为我国法律制度的重要组成部分,公证的职能优势日益凸显。为充分发挥公证工作在全面建设小康社会和构建社会主义和谐社会中的职能作用,进一步规范公证执业活动和公证管理工作,进一步提高公证队伍的政治素质、业务素质和职业道德素质,提高公证质量,维护公证信誉和形象,3月17日,司法部下发了《关于在全国公证队伍中开展教育规范树形象活动的意见》,并于3月23日～24日在京召开了全国…     

论公诉裁量中的公共利益衡量

公诉的性质、检察机关的职能决定了公共利益衡量是现代各国检察机关进行公诉裁量时应遵守的一项基本原则。公共利益衡量的适用必须具备一定的前提条件。刑事诉讼中的公共利益包括社会利益、国家利益以及被害人和被告人利益等因素 ,在进行公诉裁量时应根据具体案件的情况对各种利益进行衡量。我国的公诉裁量应体现和遵守公共利益原则。     

对公众获取公用企业信息的法律分析

规制缓和、引入竞争已经成为国际上公用企业改革的共识,同时其也对政府监管与公众参与提出了更高的要求。如在公用企业调价的听证工作中,信息不对称导致作为消费者的公众处于信息获取的劣势地位,消费者代表往往无法提出有说服力的意见。针对《政府信息公开条例》第37条的规定,实践之中产生了一些公众申请公用企业信息公开的事件或案例,引发了诸多的争议,因此有必要对公用企业是否适用该条例,公用企业如何更好地履行信息公开的义务,以及公众如何有效获取信息等问题进行深入探讨。     

Police and the Public

In this article two features of the theme police and the public are discussed. The first part deals with the public opinion of the police and how the police deal with the public. This is a well-documented issue, but only very generally related to 'policing'. The problem of dealing with the public arises in very similar terms in all administrations, public services and community services. The qualities expected of a 'front office' (speed, competence, confidentiality, etc.) are not peculiar to the police. On the other hand, the situation of a public policing service as an urban police force is currently very specific, has an unusual, virtually undocumented historical background and is therefore worth dealing with in much greater detail. This is done in the second part of the article. To grasp this role, one needs to consider the way in which the public police service has evolved in the last half-century. Admittedly, the situation in France has certain special features, but these are simply magnified versions of things which exist elsewhere. It may be true that the institutional background has precipitated developments in France, but that same background is present in all comparable countries.     

公共治理困境与公法学的理性回应

公共治理是公共行政领域一种方兴未艾的模式,但公共治理不是万能的,也存在治理"失灵",存在政府"空心化",公共行政"能力赤字"、问责过程的复杂化、成本—收益计算模糊化、公众对政府的信任度降低等困境。公共治理不仅是一个政治学术语,也是重要的法学范畴,主要表现为公共治理以依法治理为前提,是公民参与、协商合作的持续互动,是追求平等、权利、尊严的过程。所以,面对公共治理的困境,法学策略显得尤为重要,应当彰显公共利益,树立有限政府理念,增强政府核心能力;厘清责任链,建立责任政府,加强非政府组织的责任承担能力;引入成本—收益核算机制,提高公共治理的效率;减少宪法规定的社会权种类,加强国家对民生的保障力度。     

When the "Public Interest" is Not What Interests the Public

In response to the Federal Communications Commission's proposed changes to its electronic media ownership rules, thousands of concerned citizens filed e-mail comments to express their opinions. The chairman of the FCC at that time, Michael Powell, opined that such comments were too general to be seriously considered by the agency in making its decisions. Several indicia of effective participation in such proceedings have been established in the literature, including whether the comments provide specific information relevant to the issues being considered. This article analyses the e-mail comments filed in the FCC's ownership proceedings to determine whether they contain the kind of information that is considered necessary for meaningful public participation. While the comments generally addressed relevant topics in sometimes sophisticated ways, they did not present the kinds of specific information that the Commission uses to justify its expert opinions.     

Whistleblowers, the Public Interest, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

Corporate crime and organisational deviance raise complex legal issues. An initial problem lies simply in identifying when such wrongdoing has occurred. Here, whistleblowers can perform a valuable service. However, publicized cases suggest that they often pay dearly for their candour, encountering unfair sanctions at work. In Britain, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 seeks to protect "good-faith" whistleblowers from employer reprisals. In the wake of this legislation, the authors examine whistleblowing from a socio-legal perspective, asking what motivates whistleblowers, how do institutions respond to them, can legislation adequately protect them, and what effects will PIDA have on whistleblowing, employment practices, the culture of the workplace and, ultimately, society.     

论民营化后公用事业规制的公益目标

民营化改革致使人们普遍担心公用事业用户的消费负担增加、市场竞争受阻,乃至影响到资源环境的可持续发展。在回答"公用事业为什么需要规制"这一问题上,公共利益是永恒的答案。尽管公共利益的概念具有不确定性,但是在公用事业民营化改革不断深化的特定情境中,公用事业规制所追求的公共利益仍可获其特定内涵,并可以划分为三个不同的面向,即通过强制延伸服务机制、抵制掠夺性定价和限制市场退出确保公用事业服务的普遍化、通过纠正无效率或不公正市场运作实现社会总体经济福利的优化、通过加强对环境污染的规制促进资源环境的可持续发展。但是,公共利益并非公用事业规制所追求的最终目标,追求公共利益在根本上是为了更好地尊重和保障个体人权。     

试论公示公信原则与知识产权保护

公示公信原则是物权法的一项基本原则,对于保护权利人的权利和交易安全具有重要的意义。但是,对于公示公信原则的内容却有不同的见解。有的认为,物权公示原则,指物权的各种变动必须以一种可以公开的、能够表现这种物权变动事实的方式向社会公开,并进而决定物权变动的效力,使第三人知道物