本文選題：環(huán)境侵權(quán) + 無過錯責(zé)任原則��； 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 無過錯責(zé)任原則與舉證責(zé)任倒置均興起于近代工業(yè)社會,都在某種程度上對傳統(tǒng)民事法理論作出一些修正,且均體現(xiàn)出法律對公平正義目標(biāo)的追求。我國環(huán)境侵權(quán)立法在歸責(zé)原則上,目前采無過錯責(zé)任原則的一元體制,在舉證責(zé)任分配上,對因果關(guān)系統(tǒng)一由污染者承擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任。這與德國、日本和英美法系國家相應(yīng)立法都有很大差別,這些國家在環(huán)境侵權(quán)歸責(zé)原則上采二元體制——過錯責(zé)任與無過錯責(zé)任原則并存,在舉證責(zé)任分配上也適用較靈活。我國在環(huán)境侵權(quán)的立法和理論方面存在一定的矛盾,以致引起無過錯責(zé)任原則和舉證責(zé)任倒置的擴(kuò)大適用。針對這種情況,我國建立、健全以無過錯責(zé)任原則為主、過錯責(zé)任為補(bǔ)充的環(huán)境侵權(quán)歸責(zé)體系；在舉證責(zé)任分配上,避免“一刀切”地對所有環(huán)境訴訟案件適用同一標(biāo)準(zhǔn),避免當(dāng)前舉證責(zé)任倒置被擴(kuò)大適用的情況,必須針對類型化的環(huán)境侵權(quán)進(jìn)行具體分析,綜合考量影響舉證責(zé)任分配的多種因素,通過實行環(huán)境侵權(quán)舉證責(zé)任的多樣化,來保障和實現(xiàn)環(huán)境訴訟的程序正義。盡快通過司法解釋來完善現(xiàn)有立法,是完善我國環(huán)境侵權(quán)制度的便捷途徑。我國的司法實踐證明,60年間“兩高”制定的司法解釋,不僅對審判工作的順利開展起了重要的作用,也為我國立法事業(yè)的發(fā)展貢獻(xiàn)了許多力量。通過司法解釋厘清環(huán)境侵權(quán)的界限,并對無過錯責(zé)任原則的適用范圍和舉證責(zé)任分配的空間作詳細(xì)規(guī)定,是解決當(dāng)前問題的有效方法。
[Abstract]:The principle of no-fault liability and the inversion of the burden of proof both arose in the modern industrial society, and both made some amendments to the traditional theory of civil law to some extent, and both reflected the law's pursuit of the goal of fairness and justice. In the principle of imputation, the legislation of environmental tort in our country adopts the unitary system of no-fault liability at present. In the distribution of burden of proof, the polluter bears the burden of proof in the unity of causality. This is very different from the corresponding legislation of Germany, Japan and Anglo-American law system countries, which adopt dualistic system-fault liability and no-fault liability principle in the principle of environmental tort imputation, and the allocation of burden of proof is also more flexible. There are some contradictions in the legislation and theory of environmental tort in our country, which leads to the extension of the principle of no-fault liability and the inversion of the burden of proof. In view of this situation, our country establishes and perfects the environmental tort liability system, which is mainly based on the principle of no-fault liability and supplemented by fault liability, and avoids applying the same standard to all environmental litigation cases in a "one-size-fits-all" manner in the distribution of the burden of proof. In order to avoid the current situation that the burden of proof has been expanded and applied, it is necessary to make a concrete analysis of the type of environmental tort, consider comprehensively the factors that affect the distribution of the burden of proof, and carry out the diversification of the burden of proof in environmental tort. To protect and realize the procedural justice of environmental litigation. It is a convenient way to perfect the system of environmental tort through judicial interpretation as soon as possible. The judicial practice of our country has proved that the judicial interpretation formulated by the "two High" in the past 60 years not only played an important role in the smooth development of the judicial work, but also contributed a lot to the development of the legislative cause of our country. It is an effective method to solve the current problem by clarifying the limits of environmental tort through judicial interpretation and providing in detail the scope of application of the principle of no-fault liability and the distribution of the burden of proof.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D922.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 王利明;論無過失責(zé)任[J];比較法研究;1991年02期

2 楊素娟;論環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟中的因果關(guān)系推定[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年04期

3 湯維建;論民事訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任倒置[J];法律適用;2002年06期

4 劉士國;論無過錯責(zé)任[J];法學(xué)研究;1994年05期

5 趙封;朱霞;;嚴(yán)格責(zé)任概念的學(xué)術(shù)梳理[J];天府新論;2005年S2期

6 高敏;美國環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟[J];世界環(huán)境;2002年06期

7 李勇軍;從國外發(fā)展?fàn)顩r看我國環(huán)境損害賠償因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定[J];武漢理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2003年04期

，

本文編號：1913182