本文選題：光污染 + 侵權(quán)責(zé)任�。� 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：光污染侵權(quán)，是近年來出現(xiàn)頻率較高的一種侵權(quán)行為。光污染是繼大氣、水、噪音、固體廢物污染之后的一種新的環(huán)境污染形式，光污染對(duì)人的身體健康損害及自然生態(tài)環(huán)境的破壞作用正日益凸顯。隨著人們環(huán)境保護(hù)意識(shí)的增強(qiáng)，對(duì)光污染的危害也有了更進(jìn)一步的認(rèn)識(shí)，光污染糾紛案件有所增多，但是由于我國目前沒有有關(guān)光污染的明確法律依據(jù)，司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)于何為“光污染”、怎樣認(rèn)定光污染侵權(quán)責(zé)任、光污染的損害賠償及舉證責(zé)任等缺乏統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。光污染立法的缺失使得實(shí)體權(quán)利缺乏法律制度的保障，光污染受害人的權(quán)利救濟(jì)通常很難得以實(shí)現(xiàn)。 山東省首例“光污染”案、寧波市海曙區(qū)19戶居民集體訴電業(yè)局和開發(fā)商噪光污染、上海市陸某訴永達(dá)公司環(huán)境污染損害賠償案就是有關(guān)光污染侵權(quán)糾紛的典型案例。上述光污染糾紛案件，主要存在以下幾個(gè)爭議焦點(diǎn)：一是涉案光是否已經(jīng)達(dá)到“光污染”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；二是這些光污染行為是否應(yīng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任；三是光污染侵權(quán)適用什么樣的舉證責(zé)任。這些爭點(diǎn)是我國目前在處理光污染侵權(quán)案中普遍所遭遇到的，是司法實(shí)踐中亟待解決的問題。通過對(duì)上述案例焦點(diǎn)問題的分析：首先對(duì)“光污染”的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作出了闡述；其次比較分析了一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任與光污染侵權(quán)責(zé)任的異同，按照特殊侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件對(duì)光污染侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)論述；然后對(duì)此類案件中的舉證責(zé)任分配進(jìn)行了分析；最后給出了相關(guān)的立法建議，，目的在于完善我國的光污染立法，同時(shí)也為光污染侵權(quán)糾紛提供更加完善的法律救濟(jì)手段。
[Abstract]:The infringement of light pollution is a kind of tort with high frequency in recent years.Light pollution is a new form of environmental pollution following the pollution of atmosphere, water, noise and solid waste. The damage of light pollution to human health and natural ecological environment is becoming increasingly prominent.With the enhancement of people's awareness of environmental protection, the harm of light pollution has also been further understood, and the number of disputes over light pollution has increased. However, there is no clear legal basis for light pollution in our country at present.In judicial practice, there is a lack of unified standards for determining what is "light pollution", how to determine the tort liability of light pollution, compensation for damage caused by light pollution and the burden of proof.The lack of light pollution legislation makes the substantive rights lack of legal system protection, the relief of the rights of the victims of light pollution is usually difficult to achieve.The first case of "light pollution" in Shandong Province, 19 households in Haishu District of Ningbo City collectively sued the electricity Bureau and developers for light pollution, and Shanghai City Lu Mou v. Yongda Company Environmental pollution damage compensation case is a typical case of light pollution infringement dispute.In the above-mentioned light pollution dispute cases, there are several controversial points as follows: first, whether the light involved in the case has reached the standard of "light pollution"; second, whether these light pollution acts should bear the tort liability;Third, what kind of burden of proof is applicable to the infringement of light pollution.These points are generally encountered in dealing with light pollution infringement cases in our country, and are the problems to be solved urgently in judicial practice.Through the analysis of the focus of the above cases: firstly, it expounds the standard of "light pollution"; secondly, it compares and analyzes the similarities and differences between the general tort liability and the light pollution tort liability, and then compares and analyzes the differences and similarities between the common tort liability and the light pollution tort liability.According to the constitution of special tort liability, the author discusses the identification of light pollution tort liability in detail; then analyzes the distribution of the burden of proof in such cases; finally, gives the relevant legislative suggestions.The purpose is to perfect the legislation of light pollution and to provide more perfect legal remedy for the infringement dispute of light pollution.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923;D922.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 馬嬋娟;;論光污染民事責(zé)任的承擔(dān)[J];太原師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年05期

2 劉小紅;;我國光污染防治立法初探[J];河北法學(xué);2008年07期

3 丁鑄昌,吳笛,王征,孔繁濤;城市光污染侵害案件法律適用問題的探討[J];中國環(huán)境管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

4 史娜;;關(guān)于光污染立法的思考[J];內(nèi)蒙古科技與經(jīng)濟(jì);2010年05期

5 段德臣;;光污染侵權(quán)損害探析[J];宿州教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

6 范利平;侵權(quán)法上因果關(guān)系研究[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2004年03期

7 王慧娟;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)行為的責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件探討[J];中國新技術(shù)新產(chǎn)品;2011年09期

8 周珂;梁文婷;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)——公平關(guān)系的新詮釋與適用[J];政法論叢;2008年02期

9 王莘雅;;環(huán)境污染侵權(quán)民事訴訟受害人的舉證責(zé)任[J];中國商界(下半月);2010年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 實(shí)習(xí)生 張洪雁;[N];科技日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 葛洪濤;論侵權(quán)法中的因果關(guān)系[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

本文編號(hào)：1731997