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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sang, Tian, Zhang, Lijun
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