發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-17 22:14

  本文選題：國(guó)際法 + 跨界損害��； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：第二次世界大戰(zhàn)以后,科學(xué)技術(shù)的飛速發(fā)展?jié)M足了人們不斷增長(zhǎng)的需求的同時(shí),也給人類帶來(lái)了無(wú)法化解的災(zāi)難。石油污染和核泄漏引發(fā)的跨界損害給受害者造成的損失和災(zāi)難無(wú)法用語(yǔ)言描述。在巨大的跨界損害災(zāi)難面前,受害者不僅面臨巨大的生命、健康和財(cái)產(chǎn)損失,就連他們賴以生存的自然和人文社會(huì)環(huán)境也遭到極大的破壞,甚至毀滅。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái),跨界損害的受害者很難得到及時(shí)和充分的賠償。但受害者沒(méi)有義務(wù)承擔(dān)這種禍從天降的災(zāi)難。國(guó)際社會(huì)已經(jīng)開(kāi)始關(guān)注到這個(gè)問(wèn)題,并在一些領(lǐng)域中建立了有利于保證對(duì)受害者進(jìn)行及時(shí)和充分賠償?shù)目缃鐡p害損失分擔(dān)的規(guī)則。但這類規(guī)則還沒(méi)有在國(guó)際法相關(guān)領(lǐng)域中廣泛應(yīng)用,有關(guān)規(guī)則和制度也還需要進(jìn)一步完善。 本文在對(duì)跨界損害的概念、分類和后果進(jìn)行細(xì)致的梳理以后,從跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的概念、特征和性質(zhì)入手,對(duì)跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的基本理論問(wèn)題進(jìn)行研究。本文研究的問(wèn)題包括:跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的概念及其歷史沿革、跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的法律原則以及跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的主體模式。論文由導(dǎo)言、正文和結(jié)論三部分組成。在寫(xiě)作過(guò)程中,我在文獻(xiàn)研究的基礎(chǔ)上,綜合運(yùn)用法理分析、比較分析、案例分析、歷史分析、定性分析、以及跨學(xué)科分析等方法,力求高質(zhì)量地完成該篇論文。 導(dǎo)言部分簡(jiǎn)要介紹了跨界損害損失分擔(dān)制度產(chǎn)生的法理基礎(chǔ)和倫理基礎(chǔ)、論文選題的目的和意義、當(dāng)前的研究狀況、論文的基礎(chǔ)思路以及論文的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。 跨界損害損失分擔(dān)源于但又不同于跨界損害責(zé)任,它是對(duì)跨界損害責(zé)任的延伸和發(fā)展。其法理基礎(chǔ)不是為了對(duì)民事責(zé)任人行使矯正正義,而是為了實(shí)現(xiàn)分配正義。跨界損害損失分擔(dān)正是基于這樣的倫理基礎(chǔ),在不背離污染者付費(fèi)原則的前提下,把對(duì)受害者的賠償作為起點(diǎn),逆向設(shè)計(jì)多重?fù)p失分擔(dān)者的賠償責(zé)任和賠償義務(wù)。不僅由民事責(zé)任人承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任,而且,有關(guān)受益者或潛在污染者、以及特定情況下的起源國(guó)也分擔(dān)跨界損害的損失,實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)受害者及時(shí)和充分的賠償。 正文第一章是跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的概念及其歷史沿革。在第一節(jié)“跨界損害的概念、種類和客體內(nèi)容”中,首先明確了本文所研究的跨界損害的范圍與國(guó)際法委員會(huì)在討論該議題時(shí)的范圍是一致的。跨界損害是指在一國(guó)領(lǐng)土上或在其管轄或控制下的地方所從事的危險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)在另一國(guó)領(lǐng)土上或在該另一國(guó)管轄或控制下的其他地方所造成的人身、財(cái)產(chǎn)或環(huán)境損害。論文在從跨界損害的致害行為和結(jié)果兩個(gè)方面對(duì)跨界損害的特征進(jìn)行分析以后,接著對(duì)跨界損害按照不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行分類,并指出在不同跨界損害的情況下,應(yīng)考慮適用適當(dāng)?shù)娘L(fēng)險(xiǎn)控制和損失分擔(dān)機(jī)制。在按客體的分類中,指出目前對(duì)公域環(huán)境保護(hù)問(wèn)題上的種種不足和障礙。 第二節(jié)“跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的概念、特征、性質(zhì)和意義”中,從對(duì)“損失”、“分擔(dān)”、“損失分擔(dān)”等含義的剖析,層層遞進(jìn),分析推導(dǎo)出“跨界損害損失分擔(dān)”的概念�？缃鐡p害損失分擔(dān)是為了對(duì)受害者進(jìn)行及時(shí)和充分的賠償,由導(dǎo)致跨界損害的致害活動(dòng)的經(jīng)營(yíng)者或其民事責(zé)任人、受益者或潛在污染者、以及特定情況下的起源國(guó)等多重主體,按照一定的歸責(zé)原則和責(zé)任序位,對(duì)跨界損害的受害者分擔(dān)賠償義務(wù)的法律機(jī)制�？缃鐡p害損失分擔(dān)不僅是一個(gè)概念,更是一個(gè)機(jī)制,這個(gè)機(jī)制既包括國(guó)際法層面的,也包括國(guó)內(nèi)法層面的;既包括實(shí)體法的內(nèi)容,也包括程序法的內(nèi)容。在具體的跨界損害案件中,還會(huì)涉及國(guó)家對(duì)外國(guó)法院的判決或仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)裁決的承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行等司法協(xié)助問(wèn)題,甚至涉及對(duì)證據(jù)的搜集及認(rèn)定問(wèn)題。 跨界損害損失分擔(dān)制度的出現(xiàn)和不斷完善有其歷史的必然性。它是在人類社會(huì)不斷進(jìn)步,國(guó)際法不斷發(fā)展、國(guó)際社會(huì)越來(lái)越關(guān)注跨界損害受害者包括環(huán)境權(quán)在內(nèi)的基本人權(quán)的過(guò)程中逐步建立起來(lái)的�？缃鐡p害損失分擔(dān)制度的形成標(biāo)志著新的公平正義理念的出現(xiàn)和普遍認(rèn)同。這種新的公平正義理念,就是不僅要實(shí)現(xiàn)利益分配的正義,也要實(shí)現(xiàn)損失分擔(dān)的正義。因此,在跨界損害的情況下,不能只強(qiáng)調(diào)污染者付費(fèi),不能以強(qiáng)調(diào)致害者的民事責(zé)任來(lái)追求所謂的矯正正義,因?yàn)檫@種正義可能對(duì)受害者沒(méi)有任何裨益。 第三節(jié)在沿著國(guó)際法委員會(huì)對(duì)于國(guó)家的跨界損害責(zé)任及損失分擔(dān)的研究和審議的脈絡(luò)進(jìn)行歷史回顧和分析以后,結(jié)合有關(guān)國(guó)際司法實(shí)踐、現(xiàn)有國(guó)際條約和國(guó)際環(huán)境軟法文件,闡述了跨界損害責(zé)任的立法概況以及跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的國(guó)際法現(xiàn)狀。在當(dāng)代國(guó)際法的跨界損害責(zé)任領(lǐng)域,跨界損害損失分擔(dān)已經(jīng)在核損害和海上油污損害責(zé)任制度中建立起來(lái),但是還沒(méi)有普及到包括外空損害等有關(guān)跨界損害責(zé)任制度中。因此,跨界損害損失分擔(dān)制度的發(fā)展在不同的責(zé)任領(lǐng)域中并不平衡。 第二章是跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的法律原則。本章分三節(jié)論述了跨界損害的受害者獲得及時(shí)和充分賠償?shù)脑瓌t、污染者付費(fèi)原則、以及起源國(guó)承擔(dān)補(bǔ)充保證責(zé)任的原則。 在論述跨界損害的受害者獲得及時(shí)和充分賠償原則的過(guò)程中,首先界定了跨界損害的受害者是“由于一國(guó)在其領(lǐng)土上或在其管轄或控制下進(jìn)行的危險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)在該國(guó)以外的另一國(guó)領(lǐng)土上或在不屬于任何國(guó)家管轄的其他地方受到人身、財(cái)產(chǎn)或環(huán)境損害的人,包括自然人、法人、國(guó)家和國(guó)際組織”�？缃鐡p害的受害者和國(guó)內(nèi)侵權(quán)法中的受害者一樣,也是一個(gè)歷史的概念,它是隨著人類社會(huì)對(duì)某些權(quán)利觀念的變化、對(duì)某些權(quán)利的放棄和不斷承認(rèn)新的權(quán)利的過(guò)程中變化和發(fā)展的。 保證對(duì)受害者“及時(shí)和充分”的賠償�！凹皶r(shí)”是指時(shí)間上的“即時(shí)性”,這種時(shí)間上的即時(shí)性是指受害者為了恢復(fù)正常的生產(chǎn)和生活,而應(yīng)當(dāng)獲得盡可能快的賠償�！俺浞帧笔侵笇�(duì)賠償?shù)馁|(zhì)和量的要求,“充分賠償”的含義就是對(duì)受害者的賠償不僅要達(dá)到數(shù)量的要求,還要達(dá)到質(zhì)量的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。到目前為止,還沒(méi)有國(guó)際文件對(duì)“及時(shí)和充分賠償”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行明確的規(guī)定,但有些國(guó)際文件對(duì)“及時(shí)和充分的賠償”提出了最低的限度。最常用的表述就是使受害者恢復(fù)到“如果損害沒(méi)有發(fā)生”之前的狀態(tài)。 受害者獲得及時(shí)和充分賠償?shù)脑瓌t必須基于嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則�？缃鐡p害損失分擔(dān)在引入嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的基礎(chǔ)上,又輔以連帶責(zé)任、限額責(zé)任、保險(xiǎn)或其它財(cái)務(wù)保證作為保障,使受害者真正獲得及時(shí)和充分的賠償。受害者獲得及時(shí)和充分賠償?shù)脑瓌t已經(jīng)得到了國(guó)際環(huán)境文件的肯定和支持。除有關(guān)核損害的國(guó)際條約以外,有關(guān)跨界損害民事責(zé)任的國(guó)際條約大都把受害者獲得及時(shí)和充分賠償?shù)脑瓌t作為它們訂立條約的目的明確規(guī)定在序言或第一條中。保證這一原則目標(biāo)實(shí)現(xiàn)的跨界損害損失分擔(dān)制度雖然已經(jīng)在一些領(lǐng)域中得以確立、發(fā)展和完善,但作為一個(gè)普遍性的制度整體,它仍然是一個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的發(fā)展、變化和完善的過(guò)程。 在“污染者付費(fèi)原則”一節(jié)中,首先論述了污染者付費(fèi)原則的法律內(nèi)涵,是指造成環(huán)境損害的污染者有責(zé)任支付賠償并承擔(dān)彌補(bǔ)損害的費(fèi)用。污染者應(yīng)負(fù)的費(fèi)用包括預(yù)防環(huán)境污染的費(fèi)用、停止污染行為和防止污染繼續(xù)或擴(kuò)大以及盡速通知的義務(wù)、清除污染、恢復(fù)環(huán)境的費(fèi)用以及負(fù)損害賠償?shù)馁M(fèi)用�？缃鐡p害損失分擔(dān)沒(méi)有從污染者付費(fèi)原則入手,而是以一種逆向思維的方式,從對(duì)受害者及時(shí)和充分的賠償入手,逆向設(shè)計(jì)對(duì)受害者的賠償。但這種逆向設(shè)計(jì)的制度并不背離污染者付費(fèi)原則,只不過(guò)這里的“費(fèi)”不是污染者所造成的全部損失�？缃鐡p害損失分擔(dān)的制度設(shè)計(jì)并不要求污染者承擔(dān)所有損失,因?yàn)槟菍?duì)受害者造成實(shí)際上的受償不能,所以只讓污染者負(fù)擔(dān)其應(yīng)當(dāng)負(fù)擔(dān)且又負(fù)擔(dān)得起的費(fèi)用。 第三節(jié)是“起源國(guó)承擔(dān)補(bǔ)充保證責(zé)任的原則”。在這一部分中,首先界定了起源國(guó)的概念、責(zé)任類型和責(zé)任特點(diǎn)。起源國(guó)可以具體表述為在其領(lǐng)土上或在其管轄或控制下進(jìn)行危險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)而引起跨界損害的原因行為的發(fā)生國(guó)、或危險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)的管轄國(guó)或控制國(guó)。起源國(guó)的責(zé)任類型或者是首位全部責(zé)任,或者是次位補(bǔ)充責(zé)任。首位全部責(zé)任最具代表性的就是在外空活動(dòng)損害中發(fā)射國(guó)的責(zé)任,這種責(zé)任通常情況下都不是自己責(zé)任,而是一種替代責(zé)任。起源國(guó)的次位補(bǔ)充責(zé)任是指在跨界損害的民事責(zé)任人或有關(guān)受益人不能履行或不能全部履行賠償義務(wù)的情況下,由起源國(guó)對(duì)受害人直接承擔(dān)賠償義務(wù)的形態(tài)。起源國(guó)不管承擔(dān)首位全部責(zé)任還是次位補(bǔ)充責(zé)任,其責(zé)任性質(zhì)和特點(diǎn)都同時(shí)包含有補(bǔ)充性和擔(dān)保性。 起源國(guó)責(zé)任補(bǔ)充性的法理與國(guó)際法基礎(chǔ)主要包括三個(gè)方面:第一,跨界損害的原因行為是國(guó)際法不禁止的非國(guó)家行為。第二,污染者付費(fèi)原則。第三,受益者分擔(dān)損失。國(guó)家環(huán)境主權(quán)和不損害國(guó)外環(huán)境權(quán)益原則是起源國(guó)責(zé)任保證性的國(guó)際法基礎(chǔ)。國(guó)家環(huán)境主權(quán)與不損害國(guó)外環(huán)境權(quán)益原則是國(guó)際環(huán)境法的基本原則,在性質(zhì)上屬于國(guó)際環(huán)境法中的強(qiáng)行規(guī)范。在國(guó)際環(huán)境事務(wù)中,既要維護(hù)國(guó)家的環(huán)境主權(quán),又不能損害國(guó)外環(huán)境和相關(guān)權(quán)益,這是國(guó)家環(huán)境資源主權(quán)與不損害國(guó)外環(huán)境權(quán)益原則的根本要求,也是國(guó)際環(huán)境法的過(guò)程目標(biāo)和最終目的。 第三章“跨界損害損失分擔(dān)的主體模式”分為四節(jié)。在第一節(jié)中論述了分擔(dān)跨界損害損失多重主體的范圍及分擔(dān)模式,首先結(jié)合民法學(xué)及侵權(quán)法學(xué)的有關(guān)內(nèi)容提出并論述了單重主體責(zé)任制度和多重主體損失分擔(dān)制度的概念。多重主體損失分擔(dān)制度是指在某些侵權(quán)領(lǐng)域,法律規(guī)定由不同層級(jí)的多重義務(wù)人分擔(dān)不同的賠償義務(wù),每個(gè)層級(jí)的賠償義務(wù)人只在一定的限額內(nèi)承擔(dān)有限責(zé)任。分擔(dān)跨界損害損失的主體包括受害者、民事責(zé)任人、受益人及特定情形下的起源國(guó)。在這一節(jié)中還結(jié)合條約和有關(guān)的國(guó)際實(shí)踐,論述了跨界損害責(zé)任主體從由單重主體承擔(dān)責(zé)任向由多重主體分擔(dān)損失的變化和發(fā)展過(guò)程。 多重主體分擔(dān)跨界損害損失應(yīng)該說(shuō)始于跨界核損害責(zé)任條約,但是由于跨界海上油污損害事件發(fā)生的頻率更高,所以,國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)油污損害的損失分擔(dān)給予了更多的關(guān)注。因而,在海上油污損害責(zé)任領(lǐng)域中,損失分擔(dān)的制度更加完善,主要體現(xiàn)在以1969年《國(guó)際油污損害民事責(zé)任公約》及其議定書(shū)和1971年《建立國(guó)際油污賠償基金公約》及其議定書(shū)中�，F(xiàn)在,油污損害和核損害責(zé)任制度是多重主體分擔(dān)跨界損害損失的兩個(gè)最完善的制度領(lǐng)域,但兩者都有各自的特點(diǎn),代表著目前分擔(dān)跨界損害損失分擔(dān)制度的兩種模式。其中,跨界油污損害的損失分擔(dān)模式是通過(guò)1969年《油污損害民事責(zé)任公約》體系和1971年《建立國(guó)際油污賠償基金公約》雙重條約體系建立的,民事責(zé)任人的賠償責(zé)任和補(bǔ)充賠償人的次位賠償義務(wù)規(guī)定在不同的條約中。跨界核損害的損失分擔(dān)是通過(guò)單一條約體系建立的,即民事責(zé)任人的賠償責(zé)任和補(bǔ)充賠償人的次位賠償義務(wù)是規(guī)定在同一個(gè)條約中。這兩種模式不僅在立法方式上不同,起源國(guó)在分擔(dān)損失時(shí)的地位和作用也不相同�？缃绾藫p害的損失分擔(dān)者主要是起源國(guó),即有關(guān)公約中所指的“裝置國(guó)”,而海上油污損害的損失分擔(dān)者主要是相關(guān)受益人,即由石油進(jìn)口商建立的基金分擔(dān)損失。 本章的第二、三節(jié)分別論述了民事責(zé)任人和次位損失分擔(dān)者各自分擔(dān)跨界損害損失的范圍、免責(zé)、限額責(zé)任、保險(xiǎn)保證等內(nèi)容。最后一節(jié)則專門論述了起源國(guó)在分擔(dān)跨界損害損失中的義務(wù)。按照國(guó)際法,起源國(guó)作為在其領(lǐng)土上或在其管轄或控制下進(jìn)行危險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)的國(guó)家,首先應(yīng)當(dāng)履行預(yù)防原則所要求的一般義務(wù),并從國(guó)內(nèi)法層面上保證有完善的法律機(jī)制保證受害者可以獲得及時(shí)和充分的賠償。其次,在跨界損害發(fā)生或可能發(fā)生的緊急情況下,起源國(guó)應(yīng)當(dāng)履行通知和磋商、采取預(yù)防措施及緊急援助的義務(wù)。另外,有些國(guó)際條約已經(jīng)明確地賦予了國(guó)家作為民事賠償義務(wù)人,承擔(dān)民事賠償責(zé)任以外的補(bǔ)充賠償義務(wù)。再有,即使在有些情況下,國(guó)家既不是民事責(zé)任人,也不是賠償義務(wù)人,但國(guó)家卻承擔(dān)了賠償受害者損失的義務(wù),這種義務(wù)實(shí)際就是國(guó)家的國(guó)際賠償責(zé)任,盡管在實(shí)踐中國(guó)家常以所謂的“負(fù)責(zé)任”或“人道援助”的面目出現(xiàn)。 結(jié)論部分在總結(jié)了全篇文章的主要觀點(diǎn)外,進(jìn)一步指出,跨界損害損失分擔(dān)制度仍然處于發(fā)展和完善過(guò)程之中。國(guó)家和國(guó)際社會(huì)都還有許多工作要做。由于國(guó)家的國(guó)際賠償責(zé)任是國(guó)家的一般義務(wù),其義務(wù)的確定往往涉及許多不確定的因素。而國(guó)家的民事賠償義務(wù)確是具體的、確定的,受害者可以通過(guò)民事法律程序?qū)崿F(xiàn)獲得賠償?shù)臋?quán)利。因此,為了保證跨界損害的受害者獲得及時(shí)和充分的賠償,完善跨界損害損失分擔(dān),國(guó)家和國(guó)際社會(huì)都應(yīng)當(dāng)致力于研究、制定、完善國(guó)家承擔(dān)民事賠償義務(wù)的有關(guān)規(guī)范。
[Abstract]:In the wake of the Second World War , the rapid development of science and technology has met the ever - increasing demands of people , and also brought untold suffering to humanity . The loss and disaster caused by transboundary harm caused by oil pollution and nuclear leakage have been greatly undermined and even destroyed . The international community has begun to focus on this problem and has in some areas established rules that are conducive to ensuring timely and adequate compensation for victims . But such rules are not widely used in the relevant fields of international law , and the rules and systems are also needed to be further refined .

After combing the concept , classification and consequence of cross - border damage , this paper studies the basic theory of the loss - sharing of cross - border damage . The thesis consists of three parts : introduction , text and conclusion . In the process of writing , I use the methods of jurisprudence analysis , comparative analysis , case analysis , historical analysis , qualitative analysis and cross - disciplinary analysis .

The introduction part briefly introduces the legal basis and ethical basis of cross - border damage loss sharing system , the purpose and significance of the thesis selection , the current research situation , the paper ' s basic thinking and the innovation point of the paper .

In order to realize the distribution of justice , the loss - sharing of cross - border damage is based on the ethical basis . It is based on the ethical basis that the compensation of the victim as the starting point and the counter - design multiple - loss burden - sharing is based on the ethical basis , and the loss of cross - border damage is shared by the origin of the beneficiary or the potential polluters , and the origin of the specific case , so as to realize prompt and adequate compensation for the victims .

In the first chapter , the concept of transboundary harm and its historical evolution are defined . In the first section , " concept , type and object content of transboundary harm " , it is clear that the scope of transboundary harm studied in this paper is consistent with the scope of international law committee in discussing the topic .

In the second section , " the concept , characteristics , nature and significance of the loss - sharing of transboundary harm " , from the analysis of the meaning of " loss " , " sharing " and " loss sharing " , the author deduces the concept of " cross - border damage loss sharing " . It is not only the content of substantive law but also the content of procedural law .

The emergence and perfection of the loss - sharing system of cross - border damage has its historical inevitability . It is gradually established in the process of progressive development of human society and the constant development of international law . The formation of cross - border damage loss - sharing system marks the emergence and universal identification of new fairness and justice .

In the third section , following the historical review and analysis of the research and consideration of the cross - border damage liability and loss - sharing of the State by the International Law Commission , in the light of the relevant international judicial practice , the existing international treaties and the international environmental soft law documents , this paper expounds the legislative situation of the liability of transboundary harm and the current situation of international law on the loss of transboundary harm . In the field of cross - border damage liability in contemporary international law , the cross - border damage loss sharing has been established in the system of liability for cross - border damage , including outer space damage , etc . Therefore , the development of the cross - border damage loss sharing system is not balanced in different areas of responsibility .

Chapter 2 is the legal principle of the loss - sharing of cross - border damage . This chapter discusses the principle of obtaining prompt and adequate compensation for the victims of transboundary harm , the principle of paying for the polluters , and the principle that the State of origin assumes the responsibility of supplementary guarantee .

In the course of addressing the principle of prompt and full reparation for victims of transboundary harm , it is first defined that the victims of transboundary harm are persons , including natural persons , legal persons , States and international organizations , who are subject to physical , property or environmental damage on the territory of another State other than the country or in other places outside the country , including natural persons , legal persons , States and international organizations .

The term " timely " means the " immediate and adequate " compensation for the victims . " In time " means " temporary " in time , which means that the victims should be compensated as soon as possible in order to resume normal production and life . " Adequate compensation " means that compensation not only meets the requirements of the quantity , but also the standards of quality . " To date , there is no international document that provides the minimum limit for " prompt and adequate compensation " . The most common expression is to restore the victim to " if the damage does not take place " .

The principle of time and full reparation for victims must be based on the principle of strict liability . The principle of loss of cross - border damage should be based on the introduction of strict liability and accompanied by joint liability , limit liability , insurance or other financial guarantees . The principle of obtaining prompt and full reparation for victims has been affirmed and supported by international environmental documents . In addition to international treaties on nuclear damage , the principle of ensuring that the loss - sharing system of cross - border damage achieved by this principle has been established , developed and refined in some areas , but as a whole , it remains a dynamic development , change and improvement process .

In the section of the " polluters payment principle " , the legal connotation of the principle of paying compensation for the polluters is first discussed , which means that the polluters that cause environmental damage have the responsibility to pay compensation and bear the expenses for compensating the damage . The cost of the polluters includes the cost of prevention of environmental pollution , the elimination of pollution , the restoration of the environment , and the cost of negative damages . However , the system design of cross - border damage loss sharing does not require all losses caused by the polluters . However , the system design for the loss - sharing of cross - border damage does not require the polluters to bear all losses , so only the polluters should bear the burden and affordable costs .

In this part , the State of origin may specify the concept , the type of responsibility and the responsibility of the State of origin . The State of origin may be expressed specifically as the State of origin of the cause of transboundary harm caused by hazardous activities in its territory or under its jurisdiction or control .

The principle of national environmental sovereignty and non - damage to foreign environmental rights is the basic principle of international environmental law .

Chapter Three is divided into four sections . In the first section , we discuss the scope and the burden - sharing model of the multi - subject of the loss of cross - border damage . First , the article puts forward and discusses the concept of single - weight subject liability system and multi - subject loss - sharing system in the first section .

The loss - sharing model of transboundary oil pollution damage is established through a single treaty system , namely , the liability of civil liability and the compensation obligation of supplementary compensation are different . The loss - sharing model of transboundary damage is mainly the origin country , namely , the " device country " in the relevant convention , and the loss - sharing of the damage to the oil pollution at sea is mainly concerned beneficiary , namely the fund - sharing loss established by oil importer .

In addition , in some cases , the State is not both a civil liability person and an obligation to compensate the victim . In addition , even in some cases , the State is not a civil liability person or an obligation of compensatory obligations . In addition , even in some cases , the State assumes the obligation to compensate the victim , which is actually the international liability of the State , although in practice the State often appears in the face of the so - called " responsible " or " humanitarian assistance " .

Conclusion Part of this paper summarizes the main viewpoints of the whole article , further points out that the cross - border damage loss - sharing system is still in the process of development and improvement . The State and the international community have much work to do . Because the State ' s international liability is the general obligation of the State , the determination of its obligations often involves many uncertain factors . Therefore , in order to guarantee the prompt and adequate compensation for the victims of transboundary harm , and to improve the burden - sharing of cross - border damage , the State and the international community should devote themselves to the research , development and improvement of the relevant norms of the State ' s civil compensation obligation .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D996.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

中國(guó)期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù) 前10條

1 付翠英;張翠芳;;論私營(yíng)企業(yè)外空商業(yè)活動(dòng)跨界侵權(quán)之責(zé)任主體[J];北京航空航天大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年03期

2 林燦鈴;論國(guó)際法不加禁止行為所產(chǎn)生的損害性后果的國(guó)家責(zé)任[J];比較法研究;2000年03期

3 林燦鈴;;工業(yè)事故跨界影響的國(guó)際法分析[J];比較法研究;2007年01期

4 萬(wàn)霞;;跨界損害責(zé)任制度的新發(fā)展[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2008年01期

5 王竹;楊立新;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任分擔(dān)論[J];法學(xué)家;2009年05期

6 戚學(xué)龍;;論跨界船舶油污損害的國(guó)家責(zé)任[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年06期

7 楊文杰;;替代責(zé)任說(shuō)質(zhì)疑[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年31期

8 江偉鈺;論跨國(guó)自然資源及環(huán)境破壞的國(guó)家責(zé)任和國(guó)際賠償責(zé)任確定[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期

9 張民安;;替代責(zé)任的比較研究[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年05期

10 黃龍;;民事補(bǔ)充責(zé)任研究[J];廣西警官高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1765523