The Typological Construction of Judicial Confirmation of Ecological Restoration Goals
The goal of ecological environment restoration determines the degree of allocation of responsibility for ecological environment restoration.Judges need to comprehensively consider multiple factors,such as environmental science,economics and society,when confirming the goal of ecological environment restoration in the process of adjudicating ecological environment damage cases.Through the analysis of judicial texts uploaded to"China Judgments Online",it can be found that the following problems mainly exist in the judicial confirmation of ecological environment restoration goals:First,the restoration goals based on the state and functions before the damage occurred are inherently unreasonable and not fully suitable for the corresponding ecological environment conditions.Second,the standard of acceptable risk has been largely abandoned in judicial practice.Finally,there are often vague and ambiguous ecological restoration goals that have been endorsed by the judiciary.One of the deep-rooted causes of the above problems is that the traditional concept of restoring the original state persists in the handling of ecological environmental damage cases.However,due to the long-term,complex and hidden nature of ecological environmental damage,it is difficult to fully apply the principle of"full compensation"in damage compensation laws.In addition,excessive judicial attention to environmental damage regulation is another reason.Judicial participation in environmental regulation through individual cases is an important manifestation and main approach.Under the principle of environmental punishment,the deterrent effect of the"polluter pays"principle has been further strengthened,and the judiciary is required to impose strict ecological responsibilities on those responsible for causing real harm.The lack of guidance for the judiciary to consider the future use of the ecological environment further exacerbates the seriousness of the problem.The judiciary should divide ecological restoration goals into baseline levels,acceptable levels of risk to human health,and acceptable levels of risk to ecosystems.Then,appropriate restoration goals can be determined based on the characteristics of the damaged ecological environment.For ecological environments with high value,they should be restored to the baseline level,and for ecological environments with non-use value,such as important or irreplaceable existence value and bequest value,they should be restored to the baseline level even if the economy is not reasonable.In determining the baseline level in cases of environmental pollution,the method of determining historical data may be given priority or be of equal importance to the method of determining data from"control areas".For the determination of the baseline level in cases of ecological destruction,the method of determining data from"control areas"should be given priority over historical data.Contaminated ecosystems closely related to humans should be restored to an acceptable risk level for human health.The use of universal numerical standards should be the primary method for determining the level of acceptable risk to human health.In the absence of universal numerical standards,a risk assessment approach may be used.Under the premise that the acceptable risk level for the ecological environment is less stringent,for ecologically contaminated environments that are not closely related to humans,if they are not suitable for restoration to baseline levels,the responsible party may be required to restore them to an acceptable risk level for the ecological environment.
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
维普
