略论我国土壤污染防治法的基本原则

土壤污染防治法的基本原则是贯穿于土壤污染防治法律之中的根本指导思想或准则,是土壤污染防治法的本质与价值的交接点,对于土壤污染防治法的运作具有现实的意义,它也是克服土壤污染防治法成为成文法局限性的有效工具。土壤污染防治法的基本原则包括预防原则、可持续利用原则、污染者付费原则与综合生态系统管理原则,这四项基本原则是一个有机联系的整体。     

论预先防范原则在国际环境法中的地位

预先防范原则是在20世纪80、90年代出现在国际环境法领域的一种新的处理缺少确切科学证据的环境风险的主张.迄今已有至少八个国际环境条约载入了与预先防范原则有关的内容,虽然具体用词不尽相同;与预先防范原则有关的案例也已经有数个.以这些为研究对象,探讨预先防范原则在国际环境法上的地位.现在预先防范原则还没有形成国际环境法领域的习惯法,但很多国家愿意在处理缺少确切科学证据的环境风险时,使用与其相关的方法或措施.     

Community Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: a Difficult Relationship Between Law and Science

Abstract: The European Community legislator regulates the area of genetically modified organisms according to the precautionary principle, which implies keeping a distance from scientific results in decision-making. However, a positivist approach continues to exist within the same legislation. Paradoxically, this approach is promoted by the means of implementation of the precautionary principle. But to a large extent, it takes root in the context of the interpretation of the principle by the Community legislator, who attempts to eliminate disparities between the national legislations and to conform to World Trade Organization norms.     

国际法上的风险预防原则

风险预防原则已经成为国际和国内环境保护法律制度的一项重要的基本原则。该原则要求我们在进行任何的经济活动之前就对该活动可能会对自然环境和生态系统造成的影响进行风险预测,并相应采取针对性的措施,从而更好地保护自然环境和生态系统。但如何将该原则运用到危险废物越境转移领域,仍然有待我们进行理论上的探讨。应加强对危险废物越境转移中运用该原则等方面的探讨。     

IS ARTICLE 5.7 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT AN APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?

The “Precautionary principle” is regarded as the new buzz phrase in the discussion of risk regulation relating to the areas of environment and health. Article 5.7 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure (SPS Agreement) uses a similar approach to the protection of human, animal and plant life, and health. It is important to pay close attention to some of the relationships concerning the precautionary principle and Article 5.7. Firstly, when a member decides to take sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, they usually act from the perspective of prudence and precaution. In addition, the precautionary principle finds similar expression in Article 5.7. However, the precautionary principle has not been explicitly written in the SPS Agreement as a ground for justifying the SPS measures in situations that are inconsistent with the obligations set out in the Agreement. The case law shows that the Panel is very careful about the use of the language of precaution. The Appellate Body is reluctant to allow the precautionary principle to override the specific obligations in the Agreement. Whether Article 5.7 can be regarded as an application of the precautionary principle needs to be examined. Under the current discourse, however, this article finds that the precautionary principle cannot by any means be used as an interpretative tool for Article 5.7. Reliance on the precautionary principle to trigger Article 5.7 is supposed to be unsuccessful. As in situations where taking SPS measures threats the environment and health become irreversible, more attention should be paid to practical issues to ensure the necessity and efficacy of the measures.     

Food Safety and the Precautionary Principle: the Legitimate Moderation of Community Courts

Abstract: The precautionary principle, though not defined in the Community Treaties, has been the subject of numerous attempts at doctrinal systematisation. These efforts have, for the most part, dealt with organising how to adopt measures banning products or methods of production. Associated with this rigorous approach to the precautionary principle are questions on moratoriums and reversal of the burden of proof. Following this logic, one must understand that the precautionary principle obliges the initiator of a project (or the producer of foodstuffs) to prove the innocuousness of its product before putting it on the market. However, this concept of the precautionary principle, while held by the larger part of doctrinal opinion, is not shared by the Community courts. These have largely developed Community law on this point with a progressive corpus of decisions that give an increasingly specific definition of the concept. This attempt at definition leads to a rational presentation of the precautionary principle as a means of dealing with scientific uncertainty and not as a way of rejecting science. The aim of this article is to show that the conception held by Community courts, while apparently less protective of human health than the doctrinal conception, has the advantage of being effective; that is to say capable of practical application, while the more rigorous interpretation leads only to a protective Utopian dead-end, which its defenders find themselves incapable of progressing beyond.     

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.     

Precaution, Scientific Development and Scientific Uncertainty under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body has noted that the precautionary principle will be relevant to the interpretation of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in various ways, although the Appellate Body has declined to determine the status of the precautionary principle for international law or to find that it has been written into the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body's awareness of precaution, the dynamics of scientific research and the nature of scientific uncertainty is to be welcomed. This awareness is helpful in dealing with new and emerging issues, such as the question of when a risk assessment relied upon by a WTO member becomes outdated by virtue of subsequent scientific developments. If maintained, an overly rigid approach to risk assessment, with a tight temporal focus, will inadequately acknowledge the natural processes of flux in the development of scientific knowledge.     

风险行政的预防原则

风险预防不同于危险防御,其适用于科学上不确定的风险行政领域,在我国具有法律原则的重要地位。为了更好地保护基本权利,国家可以根据预防原则设计风险预防机制,并在特定条件下采取一定的风险预防措施。但因为风险的不确定性,国家在采取风险预防措施时存在较大的裁量空间,也容易侵害经营自由、科研自由或引发贸易纠纷。故而,如果某产品有潜在的负面效果,经风险评估判明存在科学上的不确定性,方可决定采取风险预防措施。在采取措施时,国家应当遵守比例原则、平等对待原则等要求,应当说明理由,保障公众的参与机会,并根据情况变化在事后进行评估与调整,以提高措施的可接受性、充实风险信息。在风险预防措施的合法性引起争讼时,因存在科学上的不确定性而难以适用客观性举证责任,应由双方主体在各自的责任范围内举证说明,以帮助法院解明案情,适时作出裁判。     

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 .     

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。     

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.     

Hormones, Risk Management, Precaution and Protectionism: An Analysis of the Dispute on Hormone-Treated Beef between the European Union and the United States

The first commercial dispute settled by the WTO under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement concerned the disagreement between the European Communities and the United States over the European import ban on meat and meat products derived from cattle to which hormones have been administered for growth promotion purposes. The purpose of this paper is twofold: First, we analyse the WTO's approach to the notion of risk in the use of hormones and the role this played in reaching its decision to declare the EC ban on hormone-treated beef imports inconsistent with its obligations under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. Second, we discuss the way in which the precautionary principle has been dealt with in the settlement of this conflict. We then show how this dispute has paved the way to a debate on the concept of protectionism to be applied in this kind of dispute. The European Commission in a recent communication on the precautionary principle has launched this debate.     

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.     

The Precautionary Principle in General International Law: Combating the Babylonian Confusion

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the clarification of the legal scope of the precautionary principle. The primary focus is on general international law, so as to determine as accurately as possible what it is that 'the' precautionary principle entails. The legal development, status and implications of the principle pass in review. A definition is presented of a right and a duty of States to take precautionary action, which is deemed representative of the current state of customary international law. Several particularly controversial issues receive separate treatment, including the burden of proof, the role of uncertainty and the application of the precautionary principle to human health protection. Special attention is paid to the practical relevance of the various findings, which are placed in the context of recent developments.     

高校税收筹划的法律思考——以高校教师个人所得税为视角

高校税收筹划不是偷税，而是一种合法的税务谋划或安排。高校税收筹划是高校提高教师待遇．增强高校教师纳税意识的客观需要。为实现高校效益的最大化，高校税收筹划应遵循合法原则、组织原则和审慎原则。     

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。     

Applying Precaution in EU Authorisation of Genetically Modified Products—Challenges and Suggestions for Reform

In this article, I endeavour to examine concrete challenges that arise with regard to implementation of the precautionary principle in the field of European Union regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Developed by the European courts into a general legal principle, precaution requires EU regulators to strike a balance between scientific and political legitimacy when taking decisions on risk‐entailing products. Following this understanding, the current GMO legislation creates precautionary governance structures that allow for a broad input into the authorisation process, not only of scientific, but also of ‘other legitimate factors’. At the same time, it can be criticised for narrowly defining precaution as a decision rule, which, if applied correctly, will lead the decision maker to the ‘right’ decision. I argue that this misconception is one of the reasons why, in the current authorisation practice, the EU institutions fail to apply the principle in a balanced way, falling into the extremes of either purely science‐based decision making or a highly politicised precautionary rhetoric. I suggest that in order not to be paralysing, precaution should be understood as a procedural principle that provides for precautionary governance, thus enabling regulators to make appropriate risk choices.     

The Precautionary Principle: A Thrill Ride on the Roller Coaster of Energy and Climate Law

The International Energy Agency has reported that, in 2007, fossil fuels were the source of 66% of global energy production, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that 60% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 were carbon dioxide emissions from the stationary energy sector. This article relies on recent case law in Australia to assess the extent to which the precautionary principle is a relevant consideration for development consent authorities determining applications for energy-generation facilities, including coal-fired power stations, coal mines, wind farms and uranium mines. What emerges is that there is really no certainty that the precautionary principle will be applied consistently by Australian courts to determine the legal responsibilities of decision makers assessing energy projects. In this sense, the precautionary principle has taken a thrill ride on the roller coaster of energy and climate law in Australia .     

风险预防原则理论与实践反思——兼论风险预防原则的核心问题

尽管风险预防原则已经获得了广泛的认可,但其在理论和实践两个层面都具有较大的争议性。欲破解风险预防原则的内在困境,应在明晰存在的真正问题的基础上作出解释并提出可能的解决之道,避免仅仅依据法律文本进行＂空对空＂的分析。风险预防原则存在的真正问题是其法律效力问题,这就要求我们放宽研究的视野,从法律实效和社会实证入手,探究风险预防原则如何在社会中发挥效果。