当前位置:
首页 > 社会科学 > 法律 > 法经济学视野中的环境侵权法pdf/doc/txt格式电子书下载

法经济学视野中的环境侵权法pdf/doc/txt格式电子书下载

本站仅展示书籍部分内容

如有任何咨询

请加微信10090337咨询

法经济学视野中的环境侵权法pdf/doc/txt格式电子书下载

书名:法经济学视野中的环境侵权法pdf/doc/txt格式电子书下载

推荐语:

作者:由然著

出版社:社会科学文献出版社

出版时间:2019-10-01

书籍编号:30593819

ISBN:9787520154062

正文语种:中文

字数:164182

版次:1

所属分类:社会科学-法律

全书内容:

法经济学视野中的环境侵权法pdf/doc/txt格式电子书下载








法经济学视野中的环境侵权法pdf/doc/txt格式电子书下载

摘要


我国现行环境侵权责任法律制度并不完善,在归责原则、不可抗力、过失认定标准、因果关系举证责任分配和认定、补偿性损害赔偿、惩罚性损害赔偿等各个方面都存在不同程度的立法缺陷。模糊、歧义、漏洞以及法律冲突不仅给司法实践造成了困扰,也在理论界引发了争议。以追求“公平”、“正义”或“保护弱势群体”为关键词的传统侵权责任法理论难以克服被道德直觉所支配的尴尬,而相比之下,以效率或最大化社会总体福利为目标的经济分析理论更有能力为法律决策者提供清晰指导。在法律经济学视野中,环境侵权责任法律制度最重要的功能,并非提供救济或填补损害,而是为当事人各方以合理成本控制污染事故风险创造最优激励。环境侵权责任法律制度的经济学目标被理解为最低化污染损失、污染预防成本和制度管理成本三种成本之和,而实现这一目标的手段是在各方当事人之间合理分配实体法意义上的污染损失以及程序法意义上的举证责任。基于这一观念,本书运用经济分析方法对我国环境侵权责任法律制度的主要构成要素进行效率评估,并在此基础上为制度完善提出立法和司法建议,进而澄清传统环境侵权责任法律理论中的诸多流行误识。


以“卡尔多-希克斯”效率为规范性目标的环境侵权责任法致力于实现环境事故社会成本最低化。该目标的实现需要在各个成本目标之间达成妥协。并且,我国环境侵权司法实践中多采用责任规则而非财产规则具有重要的效率意义。如果对现行立法予以梳理可以发现,我国环境侵权责任法的法定归责原则是严格责任加被害人过失责任原则,符合效率原则。目前我国环境侵权归责原则法律实践存在的主要问题在于立法和司法实践之间的抵牾。


传统侵权责任法教义学将“过失”界定为一种心理状态。法经济学将“过失”界定为一种行为,以“汉德公式”作为注意义务标准。相较而言,“汉德公式”标准具有可操作性,可以反复予以适用。以“汉德公式”为标准对目前我国环境侵权司法实践中的“过失”标准给予效率评估,可以针对发现的问题提供相应的立法建议以及司法解决方案。


“低成本者负担”原则是法律经济学理论为因果关系举证责任分配确立的效率原则。因果关系推定原则在法律实践中遭遇了司法裁判者普遍的抵制。最高人民法院通过司法解释以因果关系举证责任缓和规则取代了因果关系举证责任倒置规则的法定举证责任分配原则地位。在肯定因果关系举证责任缓和规则具有制度效率的基础上,本书提出了相应的立法建议以及司法解决方案。因果关系的证明是证据法理论研究和司法实践中的难点问题。成本合理、形式正义以及具体问题具体分析所体现的实质正义是环境侵权司法实践把握因果关系证明问题的三个关键。


从世界各国的环境侵权司法实践来看,赔偿不足是普遍存在的现实情况。受多种因素制约,作为规范性目标的“有损害必有救济”只是制度的理想而非现实。在对“完美赔偿”目标实现的一般性制约因素分析的基础上,结合我国环境侵权责任法律实践,本书探讨了“可赔偿损失”与“无法赔偿损失”赔偿不足的具体原因并给出相关建议。对环境侵权惩罚性损害赔偿问题的讨论可以细化为三个子问题:第一,在环境侵权领域引入该制度之必要性;第二,制度建构的理论基础;第三,具体的制度建构方式,包括立法和司法适用。


在总结全文的基础上,本书的最后扩展性地对环境侵权责任法在解决环境问题方面存在的制度局限性进行了比较分析、总结和概括。


关键词:环境侵权法;经济分析;效率;法律实践

Abstract


China’s environmental tort law is a work in progress,with various types of problems in terms of liabilities,force majeure,elements of negligence,burden of proof,causation,compensatory damages,punitive damages etc. Vagueness,ambiguity,loopholes and legal conflicts in the law not only have caused distress to judicial practice,but also controversies in theory. In the meantime,the pursuit of “fairness”,“justice” or “protection of vulnerable groups” in environmental tort law is nothing more than a fruitless pursuit of moral instincts. In contrast,aiming at efficiency or maximizing the overall welfare of society,economic analysis theory is more capable of providing clear guidance to decision makers. According to law and economics analysis,the most important function of environmental tort law is neither to provide relief nor to compensate damage,but to create optimal incentives for the parties to avoid the risk of pollution at reasonable cost. The economic objective of the environmental tort legal system is thought as minimizing the sum of three types of costs:the cost of pollution losses,pollution prevention cost and system management cost,and the means to achieve this objective is a reasonable allocation of cost among the parties,as well as a reasonable allocation of burden of proof. Based on this theory,I conduct an efficiency evaluation of the main elements of the environmental torts. Subsequently I will offer some legislative and judicial suggestions,and clarify some misunderstandings in the traditional environmental tort law theory.


In chapter one and two,I will discuss several basic issues of the economic analysis of environmental tort law:the economic essence of environmental tort law,its policy objectives,the form of rules and analysis framework. In my analysis,the Kaldor-Hicks criterion is the normative goal for environmental tort law. A compromise between the various targeted cost must be made to achieve the policy objectives. Although China’s environmental tort law stipulates both property rules and the rules of liability,in judicial practice liability rules rather than property rules is more relevant in terms of improving efficiency.


In chapter three,I will discuss the liability rule of environmental tort law. After an analysis of related law,I argue that the principle of strict liability plus the principle of fault liability are the legal principle of environmental tort law in China. The essence of the principle is not strictly liability rather than liability of negligence,which consistent with the principle of efficiency. At present,the main problem of the legal practice of the environmental tort law lies in the contradiction between legislation and judicial practice.


In chapter four,I will discuss the duty of care. Traditional tort law and the theory of law and economics have different views on the nature of “negligence” and the criterion of judgment:the traditional tort law defines “negligence” as a state of mind;law and economics defines “negligence” as a kind of behavior,which is using “Hand formula” as the duty of care. By contrast,“the Hand formula” standard has the advantage of operability and can be applied repeatedly. I take the “Hand formula” as the standard to evaluate the efficiency of the “fault” standard in China’s environmental tort law practice and provides solutions for relevant problems.


In chapter five and six,I will discuss the allocation and testification of the evidential burden of environmental tort causality. That “the low-cost party is responsible” is the efficiency principle that is established for the allocation of evidential burden of causality according to the legal and economic theory. Based on this principle,the application of causality presumption in environmental tort law is efficiently legitimate in the absence of counter evidence. In fact,The Supreme People’s Court has replaced “the allocation principle of causality presumption of evidential burden” by “an alleviation system of evidential burden causality” through the Judicial Interpretation of Tort Law and the Judicial Interpretation of Environmental Tort. Affirming the system efficiency of the alleviation system of evidential burden causality,this paper puts forward the corresponding legislative suggestions and judicial solutions.


The testification of causality is a difficult issue in the theoretical research and juridical practice of evidence law. This paper holds that the substantive justice embodied in reasonable cost,formal justice

....

本站仅展示书籍部分内容

如有任何咨询

请加微信10090337咨询

本站仅展示书籍部分内容
如有任何咨询

请加微信10090337咨询

再显示