【摘要】：當(dāng)前我國環(huán)境群體性事件呈高發(fā)態(tài)勢。根據(jù)引發(fā)事件事實(shí)狀態(tài)的不同可將其分為事前預(yù)防型環(huán)境群體性事件和事后救濟(jì)型環(huán)境群體性事件。預(yù)防型環(huán)境群體性事件中公眾所抵制的是有關(guān)環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的決策結(jié)果,實(shí)質(zhì)上是在主張環(huán)境公共決策過程中認(rèn)知風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的權(quán)利。著眼于預(yù)防型環(huán)境群體性事件所針對的環(huán)境公共決策過程,主要運(yùn)用理論分析、規(guī)范分析、比較分析的方法,從行政決策權(quán)的行使與公眾參與權(quán)利的實(shí)現(xiàn)入手,探究環(huán)境公共決策無法取得實(shí)質(zhì)合法性的根源,尋求化解之法治路徑。當(dāng)前環(huán)境公共決策在結(jié)構(gòu)和程序上呈現(xiàn)出封閉性,與決策結(jié)果具有直接利害關(guān)系的公眾被排除在外,其認(rèn)知風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的權(quán)利得不到有效實(shí)現(xiàn),風(fēng)險(xiǎn)溝通不暢導(dǎo)致社會(huì)可接受的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)共識不能形成,環(huán)境公共決策無法取得實(shí)質(zhì)合法性,引發(fā)預(yù)防型環(huán)境群體性事件增多。由于環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的不確定性特征,環(huán)境公共決策中專家的理性地位被動(dòng)搖,公眾參與環(huán)境決策的訴求更為強(qiáng)烈,其對風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的認(rèn)知直接決定了對最終決策結(jié)果的認(rèn)可和接受程度,政府無法獨(dú)占風(fēng)險(xiǎn)決策地位。在社會(huì)層面形成具體風(fēng)險(xiǎn)認(rèn)知的共識以便決策結(jié)果獲得普遍的認(rèn)同和接受成為環(huán)境公共決策取得實(shí)質(zhì)合法性的必要條件�；忸A(yù)防型環(huán)境群體性事件,需要在環(huán)境公共決策過程中進(jìn)行有效的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)溝通。為此,環(huán)境法應(yīng)當(dāng)將公眾作為環(huán)境決策的合作者,要求決策者主動(dòng)、全面公開決策所依據(jù)的事實(shí)和理由,對公眾意見給予及時(shí)充分的回應(yīng),尋求其理解和支持;實(shí)現(xiàn)環(huán)境信息公開的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)溝通功能;通過程序性的設(shè)計(jì)促進(jìn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)溝通的實(shí)現(xiàn),保障公眾參與的有效性。當(dāng)前有關(guān)立法已反映出對風(fēng)險(xiǎn)溝通的重視,但只是萌芽。
[Abstract]:At present, there is a high incidence of environmental group events in China. According to the difference of the factual state of the event, it can be divided into pre-prevention environmental group event and ex post facto relief environmental group event. In preventive environmental group events, the public boycotts the decision-making results of environmental risks, and in essence advocates the right to recognize risks in the process of environmental public decision-making. Focusing on the environmental public decision-making process aimed at the prevention of environmental group events, this paper mainly uses the methods of theoretical analysis, normative analysis and comparative analysis, starting with the exercise of administrative decision-making power and the realization of the right of public participation, to explore the root of the substantive legitimacy of environmental public decision-making and to seek the way to resolve the rule of law. At present, environmental public decision-making is closed in structure and procedure, and the public, which has a direct interest in decision-making results, is excluded, and its right to recognize risk is not effectively realized. Poor risk communication leads to the formation of socially acceptable risk consensus, environmental public decision-making can not obtain substantive legitimacy, leading to the increase of preventive environmental group events. Due to the uncertain characteristics of environmental risk, the rational position of experts in environmental public decision-making is shaken, and the demand of public participation in environmental decision-making is even stronger. Its cognition of risk directly determines the recognition and acceptance of the final decision-making results, and the government can not monopolize the position of risk decision-making. Forming a consensus on specific risk cognition at the social level in order to obtain universal recognition and acceptance of decision-making results becomes a necessary condition for the substantive legitimacy of environmental public decision-making. To resolve preventive environmental group events, effective risk communication should be carried out in the process of environmental public decision-making. Therefore, environmental law should regard the public as the partner of environmental decision-making, require the decision-maker to take the initiative, fully disclose the facts and reasons on which the decision-making is based, give a timely and adequate response to the public opinion, seek its understanding and support, realize the risk communication function of environmental information disclosure, and promote the realization of risk communication through procedural design to ensure the effectiveness of public participation. At present, the relevant legislation has reflected the importance of risk communication, but only in the bud.
【作者單位】： 中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：教育部人文社科青年基金項(xiàng)目“環(huán)境群體性事件中的權(quán)利表達(dá)與實(shí)現(xiàn)”(批準(zhǔn)號:13YJC820027)
【分類號】：D631.43

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃民安;慎用警力處置群體性事件[J];領(lǐng)導(dǎo)科學(xué);2000年04期

2 王昭耀;正確處理群體性事件 維護(hù)社會(huì)政治穩(wěn)定[J];中國黨政干部論壇;2000年09期

3 齊巖興,方芳;浙江省群體性事件的現(xiàn)狀及對策[J];公安學(xué)刊(浙江公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào));2000年05期

4 戴綱;“新化西河群體性事件”個(gè)案分析及反思[J];湖南公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

5 周忠偉,葉松;群體性事件及其評判[J];江西公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

6 龍慶相;論群體性事件的預(yù)防和處置[J];江西公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

7 宋昭君,曹扎根,李穎忠;強(qiáng)化信息收集 切實(shí)把握處置群體性事件的主動(dòng)權(quán)[J];公安研究;2000年05期

8 王大明;正確處理和預(yù)防群體性事件[J];求是;2001年10期

9 王親生;當(dāng)前群體性事件的主要特點(diǎn)和應(yīng)對策略[J];理論前沿;2001年04期

10 任忠英;群體性事件與社會(huì)穩(wěn)定[J];山東公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 徐乃龍;;群體性事件中網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒體的負(fù)面影響及其對策[A];中國犯罪學(xué)研究會(huì)第十四屆學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集（下冊）[C];2005年

2 陳海泉;;淺談海警部隊(duì)如何正確處置海上群體性事件[A];中國航海學(xué)會(huì)內(nèi)河船舶駕駛專業(yè)委員會(huì)港區(qū)、渡口船舶航行安全與管理論文集[C];2009年

3 畢雁英;;群體性事件的性質(zhì)及其根源分析[A];中國法學(xué)會(huì)行政法學(xué)研究會(huì)2010年會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

4 董v，

本文編號：2508055