本文選題：跨界環(huán)境損害 + 國家責(zé)任　； 參考：《外交學(xué)院》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：隨著人類社會經(jīng)濟(jì)文化生活的不斷發(fā)展，經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化已經(jīng)成為整個世界發(fā)展的趨勢。各國聯(lián)系的日益緊密使得跨界環(huán)境損害問題越來越受到當(dāng)今國際社會的關(guān)注。針對這一問題，各國的實踐以及相關(guān)的國際法律制度長期以來都有了長足的發(fā)展，但作為跨界環(huán)境損害國際法規(guī)則重要組成部分的國際法律責(zé)任制度卻發(fā)展相對緩慢。因此，跨界環(huán)境損害的國際法律責(zé)任體系就成為一個重要的理論與現(xiàn)實課題。 在傳統(tǒng)的國際法上，國家責(zé)任、國家賠償責(zé)任和國際民事責(zé)任三種責(zé)任形式并列稱為國際環(huán)境損害的三種主要責(zé)任承擔(dān)形式。所謂跨界環(huán)境損害的國家責(zé)任是指國家為其管轄控制下的非國家行為所造成的損害他國環(huán)境的后果所承擔(dān)的責(zé)任；跨界環(huán)境損害的國家賠償責(zé)任是指國家為國際法不加禁止的活動所產(chǎn)生的跨界環(huán)境損害后果承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的責(zé)任；而所謂跨界環(huán)境損害的國際民事責(zé)任則是指根據(jù)相關(guān)條約規(guī)定，由經(jīng)營者承擔(dān)的幾種高�；顒铀鶎�(dǎo)致的跨界環(huán)境損害的賠償責(zé)任。 隨著人類社會的不斷進(jìn)步和國際法的不斷發(fā)展，這一傳統(tǒng)的法律責(zé)任制度暴露出了越來越多的問題。首先，跨界環(huán)境損害國家責(zé)任以“特雷爾冶煉廠”案為模式，但該案在程序方面存在的諸多缺陷,為后來的國際法理論界所詬��；同時將私人活動造成的損害后果歸責(zé)于國家，也缺乏傳統(tǒng)國際法實踐和相關(guān)國際法理論作為支撐�！安粨p害他國環(huán)境”也很難作為一個國際習(xí)慣法意義上的國際義務(wù)得到國際社會的承認(rèn)。 跨界環(huán)境損害的國家賠償責(zé)任主要是基于國際法委員會的“國際法不加禁止的行為所產(chǎn)生的損害性后果的國際責(zé)任”專題而出現(xiàn)的。該專題歷經(jīng)20多年艱辛編纂，終于在2001年和2004年分別形成《預(yù)防危險活動的跨界損害條款草案》和《關(guān)于危險活動造成的跨界損害的損失分配的原則草案》兩大成果。但此專題的成果并沒有證明國家賠償責(zé)任的現(xiàn)實性，相反卻證明國家賠償責(zé)任實際上是國家責(zé)任和國際民事責(zé)任的各種表現(xiàn)形式，恰恰從反面證明了跨界環(huán)境損害的國家賠償責(zé)任的不現(xiàn)實性。另外傳統(tǒng)理論上的所謂跨界環(huán)境損害的國際民事責(zé)任，，只涵蓋了幾種高�；顒釉斐傻膿p害后果的責(zé)任承擔(dān)形式，顯然不能代表整個跨界環(huán)境損害的國際民事責(zé)任的全部。 本文認(rèn)為，完善的跨界環(huán)境損害的國際法律責(zé)任制度應(yīng)該具有理論的清晰性和實踐的可操作性，只應(yīng)包括跨界環(huán)境損害的國家責(zé)任和國際民事責(zé)任兩種，他們分別構(gòu)成國際公法和國際私法上的跨界環(huán)境損害責(zé)任，形成一個統(tǒng)一的穩(wěn)定的跨界環(huán)境損害的國際法律責(zé)任體系。
[Abstract]:With the development of the social, economic and cultural life, economic globalization has become the trend of the whole world. The problem of transboundary environmental damage has been paid more and more attention by the international community. In response to this problem, the practice of various countries and the relevant international legal systems have developed rapidly for a long time, but the international legal liability system, as an important part of the rules of international law for transboundary environmental damage, has developed relatively slowly. Therefore, the system of international legal liability for transboundary environmental damage has become an important theoretical and practical issue. In the traditional international law, the three forms of responsibility, state responsibility, state liability and international civil liability are called the three main forms of responsibility for international environmental damage. The so-called State responsibility for transboundary environmental harm refers to the responsibility of the State for the consequences of damage to the environment of other States resulting from non-State acts under its jurisdiction and control; The State liability for transboundary environmental damage refers to the corresponding liability of the State for the consequences of transboundary environmental damage arising from activities not prohibited by international law, while the so-called international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage refers to the provisions of relevant treaties, Liability for transboundary environmental damage caused by several high-risk activities by the operator. With the progress of human society and the development of international law, this traditional legal liability system has exposed more and more problems. First, State responsibility for transboundary environmental damage is modelled on the Trail smelter case, but the procedural shortcomings of the case have been criticized by subsequent theorists of international law, while the consequences of damage caused by private activities are imputed to the State. Also lacks the traditional international law practice and the correlation international law theory as the support. It is also difficult to be recognized by the international community as an international obligation in the sense of international customary law. The responsibility of States for transboundary environmental harm arises primarily from the International Law Commission's topic "International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law". After more than 20 years of hard compilation, the topic finally produced two major achievements in 2001 and 2004, respectively, namely, the draft articles on the prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities and the draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities. The results of this topic, however, do not prove the reality of State liability, but rather demonstrate that State liability is in fact a manifestation of State responsibility and international civil liability, It is precisely from the opposite side that the state liability for transboundary environmental damage is proved to be impractical. In addition, the traditional theory of the so-called international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage covers only the forms of liability for the consequences of damage caused by several high-risk activities, and obviously does not represent the whole international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage. This paper holds that a perfect international legal liability system for transboundary environmental damage should have theoretical clarity and practical maneuverability, and should include only two types of State liability and international civil liability for transboundary environmental damage. They constitute the liability for transboundary environmental damage in public international law and private international law respectively and form a unified and stable system of international legal liability for transboundary environmental damage.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D996.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周訓(xùn)芳;環(huán)境概念與環(huán)境法對環(huán)境概念的選擇[J];安徽工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2002年05期

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

3 王瀚;論國際民商事管轄權(quán)對準(zhǔn)據(jù)法確定的制約作用[J];武陵學(xué)刊;1997年04期

4 那力,張煬;國際環(huán)境損害責(zé)任的私法化[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2004年04期

5 劉湘溶,劉雪豐;論國家的國際環(huán)境責(zé)任[J];湖南社會科學(xué);2004年01期

6 劉衛(wèi)國;論國際民事管轄權(quán)的立法趨向[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2001年06期

7 那力;;國際環(huán)境損害責(zé)任的兩個重大變化[J];法商研究;2006年06期

8 邱伯友，段東輝;侵權(quán)行為準(zhǔn)據(jù)法的歷史狀況及最新發(fā)展[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1994年03期

9 黃進(jìn);;宏觀國際法學(xué)論[J];法學(xué)評論;1984年02期

10 慕亞平,鄭艷;國際損害責(zé)任的性質(zhì)和法理基礎(chǔ)[J];法學(xué)評論;1998年02期

本文編號：1783919