Cargando…
The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led?
There are two options for environmental tort remedy in China: resorting to environmental administration or environmental justice, with an ongoing debate over which of the two should lead. Firstly, it compares the structure of China’s environmental tort remedy system and the two types of power: admin...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9858980/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36674199 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021443 |
_version_ | 1784874241070465024 |
---|---|
author | Sang, Tian Zhang, Lijun |
author_facet | Sang, Tian Zhang, Lijun |
author_sort | Sang, Tian |
collection | PubMed |
description | There are two options for environmental tort remedy in China: resorting to environmental administration or environmental justice, with an ongoing debate over which of the two should lead. Firstly, it compares the structure of China’s environmental tort remedy system and the two types of power: administrative power and judicial power, concluding that administrative power is dominant. Then, it argues for the indispensability of judicial power, attempts to find a clear boundary between the two sides, and justifies their mutual division of labor and collaboration. Through sufficient demonstration, it clarifies why the dominant position of environmental administrative power must be guaranteed. Then, it summarizes the experience of other countries and the practice of environmental protection in China; and provides three innovative paths of the future environmental rights remedy system. These three aspects are setting up a review procedure for administrative priority judgment before filing an environmental lawsuit, establishing the independent position of experts in environmental litigation, advocating a risk communication mechanism other than litigation, and providing a richer institutional guarantee for the relief of environmental rights. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9858980 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98589802023-01-21 The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led? Sang, Tian Zhang, Lijun Int J Environ Res Public Health Article There are two options for environmental tort remedy in China: resorting to environmental administration or environmental justice, with an ongoing debate over which of the two should lead. Firstly, it compares the structure of China’s environmental tort remedy system and the two types of power: administrative power and judicial power, concluding that administrative power is dominant. Then, it argues for the indispensability of judicial power, attempts to find a clear boundary between the two sides, and justifies their mutual division of labor and collaboration. Through sufficient demonstration, it clarifies why the dominant position of environmental administrative power must be guaranteed. Then, it summarizes the experience of other countries and the practice of environmental protection in China; and provides three innovative paths of the future environmental rights remedy system. These three aspects are setting up a review procedure for administrative priority judgment before filing an environmental lawsuit, establishing the independent position of experts in environmental litigation, advocating a risk communication mechanism other than litigation, and providing a richer institutional guarantee for the relief of environmental rights. MDPI 2023-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9858980/ /pubmed/36674199 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021443 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Sang, Tian Zhang, Lijun The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led? |
title | The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led? |
title_full | The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led? |
title_fullStr | The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led? |
title_full_unstemmed | The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led? |
title_short | The Institutional Positioning of Environmental Tort Remedy in China: Executive-Led or Judicial-Led? |
title_sort | institutional positioning of environmental tort remedy in china: executive-led or judicial-led? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9858980/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36674199 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021443 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sangtian theinstitutionalpositioningofenvironmentaltortremedyinchinaexecutiveledorjudicialled AT zhanglijun theinstitutionalpositioningofenvironmentaltortremedyinchinaexecutiveledorjudicialled AT sangtian institutionalpositioningofenvironmentaltortremedyinchinaexecutiveledorjudicialled AT zhanglijun institutionalpositioningofenvironmentaltortremedyinchinaexecutiveledorjudicialled |