環(huán)境法課件（英文版）

1、Environmental Law,Xu Suping,Outline of the Contents,Words and ExpressionsIntroduction to American Environmental LawCase：S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental ProtectionAnalysis of sentencesQuestions,Words and

2、Expressions,Environmental (protection) law 環(huán)境（保護(hù)）法Water Pollution Control Act水污染防治法Noise pollution 噪聲污染W(wǎng)ildlife野生生物Ecology生態(tài)（學(xué)）Pesticide殺蟲劑、農(nóng)藥,Indictment刑事起訴（書）Reversal of (a decision)駁回（裁決）Court of appeals上訴法院Bi

3、ll法案Amendment修正Hearing聽證會Lobby（美國國會）院外集團(tuán)Environmental impact statement環(huán)境影響報告書,Introduction to American Environmental Law,一、Historic Development of American Environmental Law1. As recently as the early 1960s, the Phr

4、ase “environmental law” would probably have produced little more than a puzzled look, even from many lawyers.,There were numerous state and some federal laws intended to protect America’s rivers and streams from excessiv

5、e industrial pollution and to guard wildlife from the depredations of man. But these regulations were generally ignored.Indeed, many environmental statutes were so little publicized and so vaguely worded that their exis

6、tence was hardly known and their meaning was scarcely understood.,2. In the late 1960s both state and federal governments began enacting legislation and establishing new agencies to set and enforce standards of clean air

7、 and water and to protect America’s remaining open land from abuse by overzealous developers.The federal Clean Air Act of 1967, the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1970 and the 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution

8、Control Act set new high standards for environmental quality.,In 1969 Congress, noting the lack of a comprehensive national environmental policy, passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Its purpose is “to de

9、clare a national policy which will encourage protective and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment…and stimulate the health and wel

10、fare of man…”,3. In 1970 the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established as a high command for the national campaign to ensure clean air and pure water and a host of other environmental requirements tha

11、t Congress had mandated.在1970年代，以美國總統(tǒng)和議會為主導(dǎo)制定了很多劃時代的環(huán)境法規(guī)，美國成為世界環(huán)境保護(hù)的領(lǐng)跑者。因此，1970年代被稱為“環(huán)境的10年”，現(xiàn)在執(zhí)行的大部分環(huán)境法都是這一時期制定的。其后的動向都是圍繞這些環(huán)境法規(guī)的執(zhí)行與修改問題，除1990年的《大氣清潔法》之外，基本上沒有新的進(jìn)展。,二、Introduction to some American environmental laws1.

12、 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969 國家環(huán)境政策法NEPA is the basic environmental law of America, which requires that all federal agencies prepare detailed descriptions of the environmental changes that would result

13、 from any proposed programs in which the federal government has a jurisdictional or financial role.,The environmental impact statement （環(huán)境影響報告書）must also include alternatives to the proposed action ,together with their e

14、nvironmental impacts, and must accompany the proposed program wherever it is reviewed.國家環(huán)境政策法（NEPA）是世界上率先導(dǎo)入環(huán)境影響評價制度的法律。環(huán)境影響評價制度給予居民和環(huán)境保護(hù)團(tuán)體以強(qiáng)有力的武器，當(dāng)初以該法為依據(jù)提起了很多訴訟。,2、The Clean Water Act The Federal Water Pollution Contr

15、ol Act Amendments of 1972, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act, is one of the most important and far-reaching environmental statutes ever passed by the U.S. Congress. Enacted originally in 1948, the Act was amen

16、ded numerous times until it was reorganized and expanded in 1972. It continues to be amended almost every year.,The goal of the Clean Water Act 1972 is to ensure that all waters of the United States be "fishable&quo

17、t; and "swimmable" . The 1972 Clean Water Act also set as a lofty goal （崇高的目標(biāo)）the "zero discharge" of pollutants into the nation's waters by 1985. Congress passed related legislation also at this

18、 time to ensure that its intent to cover all waters of the United States was clear.,3. The Endangered Species Act 1973瀕危物種法 The Endangered Species Act provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants t

19、hat are listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S. or elsewhere. Provisions are made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. The Act outlines pro

20、cedures for federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize （危害）listed species, and contains exceptions and exemptions.,The purposes of the Act are to:   provide a means of conserving the eco

21、systems upon which endangered and threatened species depend; provide a program for conserving those species; take steps necessary to achieve the purposes of the international treaties and conventions. The policy of Congr

22、ess is that federal agencies must seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities in furtherance （促進(jìn)）of the Act's purposes.,三、Environmental citizen suit環(huán)境公民訴訟環(huán)境公民訴訟權(quán)指任何人（任何公民）有權(quán)代表自己對任何人（

23、包括美國政府及其政府機(jī)構(gòu)）提起一項民事訴訟，以實施授權(quán)該公民訴訟條款的環(huán)境法律、以及依據(jù)該成文法頒布的行政規(guī)章、其他諸如許可證以及行政命令等特定的法律要求。,在世界各國的環(huán)境公益訴訟制度中，美國的環(huán)境公民訴訟(Environmental Citizen Suit)是世界上最為發(fā)達(dá)和成熟的，已經(jīng)歷三十多年的發(fā)展，是美國聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律的一項基本制度，對環(huán)境法律的發(fā)展和實施產(chǎn)生了深刻的影響。環(huán)境公民訴訟制度的精髓在于“公益性”，即普通民眾為了保

24、護(hù)環(huán)境和促進(jìn)環(huán)境法律的實施，可以針對與自身無實質(zhì)利益關(guān)聯(lián)的環(huán)境違法行為或其他與環(huán)境權(quán)益相關(guān)的爭端提起訴訟，尋求法律救濟(jì)。,Environmental citizen suit is a fundamental regime of the environmental law in the U.S.A, which has a far-reaching effect on the enforcement and development of

25、 the American federal environmental law. The environmental citizen suit regime is embodied by the environmental citizen suit provisions of the federal environmental laws.,Under the environmental citizen suit provisions,

26、the main contents of the regime include: the plaintiff, the defendant, action scopes, litigation types, litigation limitations, jurisdiction courts, judgment types, protection of interests of united states, intervention

27、by others, litigation costs and none restriction of statutory or common law rights etc.,1、原告聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律中的公民訴訟條款一般明確規(guī)定，為實施該聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律，“任何人或任何公民可以代表自己提起一項民事訴訟”?！叭魏稳恕?any person)或“任何公民”(any citizen)一般被界定為環(huán)境公民訴訟的原告。但是，也有法律規(guī)定原告必須是符合法

28、定條件的法律主體，如《清潔水法》把“公民”(citizen)定義為：“公民”是指其利益已受到或可能遭受不利影響的個人或人們。,According to the Clean Water Act section 505(a)Except as provided in subsection (b) of this sectionand section 309(g)(6), any citizen may commence acivil

29、action on his own behalf—(1) against any person (including the United States, and any other governmental agency ) who is alleged to be in violation of an effluent standard limitation under this Act or an order issued by

30、 the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation, or(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is not d

31、iscretionary with the Administrator.,2、被告公民訴訟被告的范圍具體如下：第一，是指違反公民訴訟條款可訴范圍事項的“任何人”(any person)?！叭魏稳恕钡母拍钆c范圍基本上等同于原告中的“任何人（公民）”的定義。第二，是指授權(quán)該環(huán)境公民訴訟條款的聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律的法律實施（或執(zhí)行）機(jī)構(gòu)。如實施《清潔水法》、《清潔空氣法》、《資源保護(hù)和再生法》的聯(lián)邦環(huán)境保護(hù)局、實施《瀕危物種法》的內(nèi)政部和商業(yè)部

32、，如果這些機(jī)構(gòu)存在違反公民訴訟條款規(guī)定的可訴范圍之情形，即政府機(jī)構(gòu)的不作為違法等現(xiàn)象時，公民可以對其行政首腦提起公民訴訟。,3、可訴范圍可訴范圍是指，公民的權(quán)利受到不法侵害或者與他人發(fā)生糾紛和爭議時，可以提起訴訟要求法院予以司法保護(hù)的范圍。首先，只有授權(quán)了環(huán)境公民訴訟條款的聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律才存在環(huán)境公民訴訟的可訴范圍問題。其次，各法關(guān)于公民訴訟的可訴范圍是具有特定內(nèi)涵的，在這些聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律中，只有符合公民訴訟條款中的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定，公民才

33、可以提起環(huán)境公民訴訟。具體分為以下三種類型： 第一，涉嫌違反授予公民訴訟條款的聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律的任何條款和依據(jù)該法授權(quán)頒布的任何行政規(guī)章的行為。,第二，涉嫌違反授予公民訴訟條款的聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律特定法律條款和內(nèi)容的行為。 第三，聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律的行政執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)的不作為違法行為屬于公民訴訟的可訴范圍。 美國環(huán)境公民訴訟的實質(zhì)就在于任何私的主體可以根據(jù)環(huán)境公民訴訟條款提起公民訴訟，并不強(qiáng)調(diào)起訴主體與可訴范圍之間是否存在一定的利益關(guān)聯(lián)。從這一點(diǎn)上也

34、可以看出美國環(huán)境公民訴訟的公益性質(zhì)，這也正是美國環(huán)境公民訴訟的精髓：強(qiáng)調(diào)私的主體能夠針對環(huán)境違法行為發(fā)揮實施環(huán)境法律的作用。,4、訴訟類型環(huán)境公民訴訟屬于美國民事訴訟，環(huán)境公民訴訟主要包括兩類：第一，針對違反授予公民訴訟條款的聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律特定法律條款和內(nèi)容的行為提起的公民訴訟。第二，針對不作為違法提起的公民訴訟，主要是針對執(zhí)行聯(lián)邦環(huán)境法律的行政機(jī)構(gòu)不履行屬于其非自由裁量領(lǐng)域的行為和義務(wù)。5、公民訴訟的限制一定的通知(notic

35、e)期限和行政機(jī)關(guān)勤勉地實施法律(diligently enforcement)是對公民訴訟的限制。,According to the Clean Water Act section 505(b) No action may be commenced—(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of the alleged violation (i) to

36、 the Administrator, (ii) to the State in which the alleged violation occurs, and (iii) to any alleged violator of the standard, limitation, or order.(B) if the Administrator or State has commenced and is diligently pros

37、ecuting a civil or criminal action in a court of the United States, or a State to require compliance with the standard, limitation, or order.,6、管轄法院公民訴訟條款一般規(guī)定,有權(quán)受理公民訴訟的法院是被控違法行為發(fā)生地或其他被控事項發(fā)生地所在區(qū)域的聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院。 7、判決類型法院有權(quán)對環(huán)境公

38、民訴訟做出包括禁制令(injunction)、民事懲罰(civil penalty)等形式的判決。公民訴訟的雙方當(dāng)事人也可以（訴訟和解） (consent judgment)等判決類型。,8、保護(hù)美國政府利益為了保護(hù)美國政府的利益，環(huán)境公民訴訟條款一般規(guī)定，美國聯(lián)邦政府或者州政府若非公民訴訟的一方當(dāng)事人，可基于其權(quán)利參加訴訟。9、參加訴訟公民訴訟條款一般規(guī)定，除了提起公民訴訟的原告，其他任何人可基于其權(quán)利參加在美國聯(lián)邦法院提起的公

39、民訴訟。,10、訴訟費(fèi)用公民訴訟條款一般規(guī)定，法院在對公民訴訟做出終局判決時，可以將訴訟費(fèi)用判決給任何一方當(dāng)事人。11、不得限制其他權(quán)利公民訴訟條款不得對任何人(或某類人)依據(jù)任何制定法或普通法所享有的尋求實施環(huán)境法律的救濟(jì)的權(quán)利進(jìn)行限制。,案例：S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection,The S.D. Warren Paper Company owns fiv

40、e dams on the Presumpscot River in Maine, which stretches just 27 miles from Sebago Lake, through the city of Portland to the Atlantic Ocean. In 2001, as a requirement for obtaining a federal license to operate their da

41、ms, the S.D. Warren company sought and acquired a water quality certification from the state of Maine establishing conditions to ensure the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Presumpscot River.,Those con

42、ditions include maintaining minimum flows, dissolved oxygen requirements, and fish protection/passage. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) incorporated Maine’s certification conditions into the federal licens

43、e it issued.,The S.D. Warren company then filed a series of appeals opposing Maine’s certification, taking them all the way to the Maine Supreme Court. The state of Maine and American Rivers has prevailed at every step o

44、f the way. The company then filed a petition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which to the surprise of many, was granted. The D.C. Circuit also summarily rejected the company’s challenge of its FERC license.,The qu

45、estion now before the Supreme Court is whether hydroelectric facilities, which block rivers to form reservoirs and divert, channel, and release that water through pipes, gates, and canals into the river downstream, resul

46、t in “any discharge into the navigable waters” (within the meaning of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act). The answer to that threshold question is yes, according to American Rivers and the State of Maine and 35 years of

47、 practice.,As such, the hydropower facility must receive a certification from the state that those facilities must meet water quality standards.The S.D. Warren company argues that because hydroelectric facilities do not

48、 “add” anything to the water its adverse impacts to the river cannot be addressed under the Clean Water Act.  To support this claim, the company is relying upon a recent Supreme Court case (South Florida Water Mgmt.

49、 Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (2004)) even though that case focuses on a completely different part of the Clean Water Act, Section 402, which regulates the addition of pollutants such as toxics or sewage.,Hydro

50、power dams, of course, discharge water from pipes, gates, and canals and cause significant impairment to water quality in rivers. By blurring important distinctions between sections 401 and 402, the S.D. Warren company h

51、opes to create a loophole through which the industry can escape its responsibility to protect water quality and shift the burden of its impacts onto other industries and municipal sewage treatment plants at significant e

52、conomic and public cost.,There are approximately 2,500 hydroelectric dams affecting more than 500 rivers in 45 states that could be affected by this case. If the Supreme Court finds that states can no longer require thes

53、e dams to comply with water quality standards, the impacts to rivers throughout the nation would be devastating.,Hydroelectric dams often divert water out of natural stream channels leaving them dry and lifeless and then

54、 suddenly release that water, causing significant erosion and flushing the stream channel of plants and aquatic wildlife. Because the reservoirs created by dams are neither rivers nor lakes, they can negatively impact le

55、vels of oxygen and water temperatures necessary for fish and wildlife.,In addition, dams block the movement of fish, which are sometimes sucked into power turbines and killed. The operation of hydroelectric dams can also

56、 significantly inhibit river access and recreational opportunities. State water quality certifications establish requirements that significantly minimize all of these impacts while allowing continued production of electr

57、icity.,If the S.D. Warren company prevails in this case, it would leave states at the mercy of federal regulators whose mandate is power production and not water quality protection. That is cold comfort to states trying

58、to bring into compliance, rivers that do not meet minimum state clean water standards. States will be forced to lift the burden on hydropower companies and shift the responsibility of meeting those standards on to other

59、industries and municipalities.,It is important to note that Maine did not deny the S.D. Warren company its request for a permit. The state simply placed reasonable requirements on the operation of the dams to protect wat

60、er quality in the Presumpscot River requirements which were independently supported by federal agencies, upheld by four separate courts in the state of Maine, and no different from those imposed by any other state.,On Fe

61、bruary 21, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases affecting the Clean Water Act: Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, and S.D. Warren v. Maine Board of Environment

62、al Protection. Each of these cases will have profound effects on rivers throughout the nation. American Rivers is a formal party before the Court in the S.D. Warren company case. At stake in this landmark case is whether

63、 states may protect rivers from the harmful impacts of hydroelectric dams and other federally licensed activities.,四、美國環(huán)境立法及其實施對我國的環(huán)境立法的影響（一）美國六七十年代環(huán)境法發(fā)展中的經(jīng)驗教訓(xùn)1、環(huán)境訴訟中原告舉證責(zé)任要求過高2、環(huán)境管理權(quán)分散且地方性強(qiáng)3、對環(huán)境污染后果估計不足4、認(rèn)為經(jīng)濟(jì)增長與環(huán)境保

64、護(hù)不可協(xié)調(diào),（二）我國環(huán)境立法與執(zhí)法的完善我國1979年通過的《中華人民共和國環(huán)境保護(hù)法（試行）》，是環(huán)境法走向體系化、作為獨(dú)立的法律部門的標(biāo)志。1989年的《中華人民共和國環(huán)境保護(hù)法》（簡稱《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》）進(jìn)一步提高了環(huán)境法律控制的效力和可操作性。然而，我國的環(huán)境立法還有待完善。1、建立環(huán)境保險制度與責(zé)任分擔(dān)制度由于環(huán)境污染突發(fā)性強(qiáng)、受害范圍大、賠償金額大，無過失責(zé)任一方可能因經(jīng)濟(jì)能力的限制而使受害方不能得到及時賠償，或無過失責(zé)

65、任一方可能因巨額的賠償而導(dǎo)致企業(yè)破產(chǎn)，這些都不利于維護(hù)法律的公正性。建立環(huán)境保險制度和責(zé)任分擔(dān)制度可以分散風(fēng)險，既保證受害人得到了賠償又能減輕無過失責(zé)任一方的經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)。,2、完善環(huán)境監(jiān)督管理機(jī)構(gòu)和法律制度美國根據(jù)環(huán)境基本法于1970年成立國家環(huán)境保護(hù)局，并建立了一系列環(huán)境監(jiān)督法律制度。我國根據(jù)國情實行統(tǒng)一監(jiān)督管理與分部門、分級監(jiān)督管理相結(jié)合的環(huán)境管理體制，并根據(jù)我國環(huán)境基本政策和環(huán)境法基本原則通過立法形成了有關(guān)環(huán)境監(jiān)督管理的規(guī)則、程序

66、和保障措施。但我國目前的環(huán)境監(jiān)督管理機(jī)構(gòu)與群眾環(huán)境監(jiān)督管理組織的結(jié)合還不夠緊密，環(huán)境監(jiān)督管理公開性、透明度還不夠充分。,3、完善環(huán)境仲裁制度目前我國環(huán)境糾紛案件一般通過行政程序進(jìn)行，而企業(yè)往往憑借其上繳稅收的可觀性尋求政府的“保護(hù)傘”，造成對受害者極不公平的現(xiàn)象；即使通過司法程序解決，法院迫于政府的壓力也往往執(zhí)法不力。仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)作為民間組織，其公正性、獨(dú)立性能較好地體現(xiàn)。因此，建立仲裁制度來解決環(huán)境糾紛案件有其必要性和可行性。,4、依靠

67、公眾加強(qiáng)環(huán)境法的實施國外依靠公眾加強(qiáng)環(huán)境法的實施主要是抓兩頭：一是抓源頭，通過保障公眾的知情權(quán)促進(jìn)環(huán)境法的實施；二是抓末端，通過公民訴訟促進(jìn)環(huán)境法的實施。前者要求政府向公眾公布其掌握的有關(guān)環(huán)境信息，企業(yè)向公眾公布有關(guān)其企業(yè)環(huán)境行為的信息，保障公民的知情權(quán)和獲取信息的渠道暢通。,Analysis of sentences,1、There were, of course, numerous state and some federal

68、laws intended to protect America’s rivers and streams from excessive industrial pollution and to guard wildlife from the depredations (掠奪)of man.,2、With enforcement power dispersed（被分散的） among many federal, state and loc