本文關(guān)鍵詞： 電磁輻射 侵權(quán) 賠償責(zé)任　出處：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：我國《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》第六十六條將電磁波輻射作為一種污染的類型而加以規(guī)制。而近年來,伴隨著國家(超)高壓電網(wǎng)、高速鐵路、磁懸浮列車項(xiàng)目的興建,民眾對(duì)這些項(xiàng)目中可能產(chǎn)生的電磁波輻射污染尤為敏感。 由于國內(nèi)對(duì)電磁波輻射污染的研究,尤其是環(huán)境法學(xué)研究仍剛起步。受制于電磁學(xué)、醫(yī)學(xué)專業(yè)知識(shí)的限制以及相關(guān)資料的匱乏,關(guān)于電磁波輻射民事侵權(quán)損害的概念、前提、因果關(guān)系尚未得到廣泛認(rèn)同,其邊界尚未明晰。 而在實(shí)務(wù)領(lǐng)域,法官及律師一直希望政府、權(quán)威研究機(jī)構(gòu)給出電磁波輻射是否致害、如何致害、如何預(yù)防的答案。原國家環(huán)保局在《關(guān)于確定環(huán)境污染損害賠償責(zé)任問題的復(fù)函》就環(huán)境污染損害責(zé)任的法定條件做出解釋,認(rèn)為現(xiàn)有法律法規(guī)并沒有將有無過錯(cuò)以及污染物的排放是否超過標(biāo)準(zhǔn),作為確定排污單位是否承擔(dān)責(zé)任的條件。此項(xiàng)原則隨即被實(shí)務(wù)界廣泛接受。但亦有相關(guān)學(xué)者、法律工作者提出質(zhì)疑,如果國家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并非安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而是排放標(biāo)準(zhǔn),那么該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)除了決定排污收費(fèi)外,對(duì)評(píng)價(jià)環(huán)境污染侵權(quán)是否成立還有什么作用? 國際上,對(duì)電磁波輻射污染(國際上更多地使用“電磁場(chǎng)曝露”一詞)的研究已經(jīng)持續(xù)了幾十年。根據(jù)世界衛(wèi)生組織WHO的最新研究成果,人類通常能接觸到的低強(qiáng)度的極低頻電磁場(chǎng)與不利健康影響之間的關(guān)聯(lián)尚無法證實(shí)。國內(nèi)學(xué)界的相關(guān)人士即根據(jù)此項(xiàng)結(jié)論推論出極低頻電磁場(chǎng)導(dǎo)致不利健康影響的可能尚未排除。該項(xiàng)推論使得關(guān)于電磁波輻射侵權(quán)損害的因果關(guān)系問題、舉證責(zé)任分配問題、防范責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題更加復(fù)雜。 筆者認(rèn)為,上述問題的產(chǎn)生固然有其專業(yè)性的原因,使相關(guān)法學(xué)研究人員、法律工作者無從著手。同時(shí),也有著信息不對(duì)稱以及相關(guān)外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯的歧義的關(guān)系。筆者希望通過本文,達(dá)到以下三個(gè)目的： 一、幫助了解國際上權(quán)威的關(guān)于電磁波輻射是否致害的最新研究成果。 二、幫助了解澄清關(guān)于曝露限值、預(yù)防措施的概念邊界。 三、幫助了解外國關(guān)于電磁波輻射侵權(quán)案件損害及因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定的案例。 為達(dá).上述目的,本文分為五章。第一章闡述問題之產(chǎn)生。第二章闡述電磁場(chǎng)曝露致害的依據(jù)。第三章闡述曝露限值的設(shè)定。第四章闡述電磁場(chǎng)曝露的損害形式和因果關(guān)系。第五章給出總結(jié)并對(duì)建立和完善電磁場(chǎng)曝露侵權(quán)法律體系提出建議。上述五章中,第二章是閱讀本文的理論基礎(chǔ),第三章、第四章是本文的重點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the construction of national (ultra high voltage) power grid, high speed railway and maglev train project has been accompanied by the regulation of electromagnetic wave radiation as a type of pollution in the 66th item of Environmental Protection Law of our country. The public is particularly sensitive to possible electromagnetic radiation pollution from these programs. Due to the study of electromagnetic wave radiation pollution, especially the study of environmental law is still in its infancy, restricted by electromagnetism, medical professional knowledge and the lack of relevant information. As to the concept of civil tort damage caused by electromagnetic wave radiation, the causality has not been widely accepted, and its boundary is not clear. In the practical field, judges and lawyers have been hoping that the government, authoritative research institutions to give whether electromagnetic wave radiation is harmful and how to harm. The answer to how to prevent. The former State Environmental Protection Bureau in the "on the determination of environmental pollution damage liability for the issue of reply letter" on environmental pollution damage liability statutory conditions to explain. It is considered that the existing laws and regulations will not be faulted or whether the discharge of pollutants exceeds the standard. As a condition to determine whether the sewage unit is responsible, this principle has been widely accepted by the practical circles. However, some scholars and legal workers have questioned that if the national standard is not a safe standard but an emission standard. In addition to determining sewage charges, what role does the standard have in evaluating environmental pollution infringement? Internationally, the research on electromagnetic wave radiation pollution (the term "electromagnetic field exposure") has been carried out for several decades. According to the latest research results of WHO of the World Health Organization. The link between low-intensity very low-frequency electromagnetic fields and adverse health effects, to which humans are usually exposed, has not yet been confirmed. Based on this conclusion, researchers in china have inferred that very low-frequency electromagnetic fields lead to adverse health effects. This corollary raises the question of causality in relation to the damage caused by electromagnetic wave radiation infringement. The distribution of the burden of proof and the standard of prevention liability are more complicated. The author believes that the above problems of course have their professional reasons, so that the relevant legal researchers, legal workers can not start. At the same time. There is also a relationship between asymmetric information and ambiguity in the translation of relevant foreign literature. The author hopes that the following three purposes can be achieved through this paper: First, to help understand the international authority on whether electromagnetic wave radiation is the latest research results. Second, help clarify the conceptual boundaries of exposure limits and preventive measures. Third, help understand the foreign cases of electromagnetic wave radiation infringement cases of damage and causality. For the above purpose. This paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter deals with the generation of problems. The second chapter states the basis of electromagnetic field exposure damage. Chapter 3 describes the setting of exposure limit value. Chapter 4th describes the damage form and causality of electromagnetic field exposure. 5th. Chapter gives a summary and to establish and improve the electromagnetic field exposure tort legal system put forward suggestions. The above five chapters. The second chapter is the theoretical basis of reading this article, the third chapter, 4th is the focus of this paper.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D922.6;D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 張式軍;;再論環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟的舉證責(zé)任與因果關(guān)系——以一起典型的環(huán)境侵權(quán)案件為例[J];科技與法律;2008年06期

2 關(guān)麗;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中如何分配雙方的舉證責(zé)任?[J];中國審判;2007年12期

，

本文編號(hào)：1458368