【摘要】：環(huán)境保護(hù)在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)發(fā)展中越來(lái)越受到重視,行政機(jī)關(guān)作為環(huán)境公共利益的維護(hù)者具有環(huán)境保護(hù)的職責(zé)。但是,很多情況下行政機(jī)關(guān)的行政行為會(huì)損害環(huán)境公共利益,因此需要給予受害者訴訟救濟(jì)的權(quán)利。確立環(huán)境行政公益訴訟原告主體資格是提起訴訟的開(kāi)端,為了能夠達(dá)到對(duì)政府違法行政行為提起控訴,有效的監(jiān)督行政行為的目的,需要明確提起訴訟的原告主體資格。本文著眼對(duì)環(huán)境行政公益訴訟原告主體資格進(jìn)行討論。首先,文章通過(guò)介紹環(huán)境行政公益訴訟原告主體資格的相關(guān)的理論學(xué)說(shuō)主要包含環(huán)境權(quán)理論、環(huán)境公共信托理論。將環(huán)境行政公益訴訟與環(huán)境民事訴訟做差異性的對(duì)比,得出主要是二者在主體地位方面的差異。其次,在立法方面主要分析我國(guó)行政訴訟法,而我國(guó)的行政訴訟法在提起環(huán)境行政公益訴訟方面主體資格限定過(guò)于嚴(yán)格,行政訴訟法對(duì)于原告資格認(rèn)定堅(jiān)持著法定權(quán)利標(biāo)準(zhǔn),只有起訴人的實(shí)體法利益遭受侵害才能夠提起司法救濟(jì),這并不涉及維護(hù)公共利益的保護(hù)機(jī)制。通過(guò)兩個(gè)大氣污染的具體案例,分析司法中原告主體資格認(rèn)定的缺陷。筆者通過(guò)查閱資料發(fā)現(xiàn)國(guó)家認(rèn)為:“由于人們對(duì)于目前我國(guó)的制度資源不夠了解而產(chǎn)生的,對(duì)于大多數(shù)案件,可以在現(xiàn)行的行政訴訟法律體系中得到解決,只需部分法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行修改完善。”得出新修改的《行政訴訟法》未明確環(huán)境行政公益原告主體資格的原因。最后通過(guò)借鑒法國(guó)的越權(quán)訴訟、日本的民眾訴訟、美國(guó)的團(tuán)體訴訟、印度的環(huán)境行政公益訴訟制度,得出我國(guó)在構(gòu)建我國(guó)的環(huán)境行政公益訴訟方面需要堅(jiān)持行政效率原則與司法保障原則,并提出我國(guó)在構(gòu)建環(huán)境行政公益訴訟上要將原告主體資格擴(kuò)大到公民、組織、檢察機(jī)關(guān)。
[Abstract]:More and more attention has been paid to environmental protection in the development of modern society. Administrative organs, as defenders of environmental public interests, have the duty of environmental protection. However, in many cases, the administrative action of the administrative organ will harm the environmental public interest, so it is necessary to give the victim the right to litigate. To establish the subject qualification of plaintiff in environmental administrative public interest litigation is the beginning of litigation. In order to achieve the purpose of suing the illegal administrative act of government and to supervise the administrative act effectively, it is necessary to make clear the subject qualification of plaintiff who brings the lawsuit. This paper discusses the subject qualification of plaintiff in environmental administrative public interest litigation. Firstly, the article introduces the related theories of plaintiff's qualification in environmental administrative public interest litigation, including environmental right theory and environmental public trust theory. Comparing the difference between environmental administrative public interest litigation and environmental civil action, it is concluded that the main difference between them is the subject position. Secondly, in the aspect of legislation, it mainly analyzes the administrative procedure law of our country, and the administrative procedure law of our country is too strict in the qualification of the subject in bringing the environmental administrative public interest litigation. The administrative procedure law insists on the legal right standard for the qualification of the plaintiff. Only when the substantive law interests of the prosecutor are infringed can judicial remedy be brought, which is not related to the protection mechanism of the public interest. Through two specific cases of air pollution, this paper analyzes the defects of the plaintiff's qualification in the judicature. The author finds that the country thinks: "because people do not understand the current system resources of our country, for most cases, can be solved in the current legal system of administrative litigation," Only some of the legal provisions need to be modified and perfected. " The reasons why the environmental administrative public interest plaintiff's qualification is not clearly defined in the newly revised Administrative Litigation Law. Finally, by drawing lessons from the ultra vires litigation of France, the public litigation of Japan, the group action of the United States, and the environmental administrative public interest litigation system of India, It is concluded that our country should adhere to the principles of administrative efficiency and judicial protection in the construction of environmental administrative public interest litigation in our country, and put forward that our country should expand the qualification of plaintiff subject to citizens, organizations and procuratorial organs in the construction of environmental administrative public interest litigation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 秦天寶;段帷帷;;論我國(guó)環(huán)境行政公益訴訟制度的發(fā)展——以全國(guó)首例檢察機(jī)關(guān)提起環(huán)境行政公益訴訟案為例[J];環(huán)境保護(hù);2015年01期

2 王彬輝;;新《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》“公眾參與”條款有效實(shí)施的路徑選擇——以加拿大經(jīng)驗(yàn)為借鑒[J];法商研究;2014年04期

3 周珂;陳微;;新修訂《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》向環(huán)境污染宣戰(zhàn)[J];環(huán)境保護(hù);2014年11期

4 王燦發(fā);程多威;;新《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》規(guī)范下環(huán)境公益訴訟制度的構(gòu)建[J];環(huán)境保護(hù);2014年10期

5 秘明杰;;環(huán)境民事公益訴訟原告之環(huán)保機(jī)關(guān)的主體資格審視[J];內(nèi)蒙古社會(huì)科學(xué)(漢文版);2014年01期

6 蔡守秋;;從環(huán)境權(quán)到國(guó)家環(huán)境保護(hù)義務(wù)和環(huán)境公益訴訟[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2013年06期

7 壽瑩佳;衛(wèi)樂(lè)樂(lè);;對(duì)環(huán)保NGO成為環(huán)境公益訴訟主體的思考[J];江西理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

8 黃亞宇;;生態(tài)環(huán)境公益訴訟起訴主體的多元性及序位安排——兼與李摯萍教授商榷[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2013年07期

9 龔學(xué)德;;環(huán)境公益訴訟的角色解讀與反思[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年02期

10 郭楠;田義文;;中國(guó)環(huán)境公益訴訟的實(shí)踐障礙及完善措施——從云南曲靖市鉻污染事件談起[J];環(huán)境污染與防治;2013年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 王燦發(fā);;環(huán)境公益訴訟難在哪兒[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 張逸晨;環(huán)境行政公益訴訟原告資格[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

2 張彥菁;論我國(guó)環(huán)境行政公益訴訟制度的構(gòu)建[D];安徽大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2191459