本文關(guān)鍵詞：論我國(guó)噪聲污染防治制度的完善　出處：《煙臺(tái)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 噪聲污染 環(huán)境侵權(quán) 公眾參與 信息公開(kāi)

【摘要】：雖然我國(guó)的環(huán)境噪聲污染防治工作起步較早,但噪聲污染治理狀況依然不容樂(lè)觀,原因主要存在于以下方面。從立法上來(lái)說(shuō),雖然我國(guó)的環(huán)境立法體系已經(jīng)基本形成,但法律的內(nèi)容卻并不完善。例如,《環(huán)境保護(hù)法》中雖然規(guī)定了公眾參與制度,但對(duì)公眾參與的途徑、程序、應(yīng)有的權(quán)利等卻未提及,導(dǎo)致公民在參與過(guò)程中無(wú)據(jù)可循�！对肼曃廴痉乐畏ā分须m然規(guī)定建筑施工需要夜間作業(yè)的,須公告附近的居民,但并未說(shuō)如果侵害居民的權(quán)益應(yīng)如何補(bǔ)償或賠償。執(zhí)法上,存在多頭管理、相互推諉的現(xiàn)象。公安、交通、鐵路、民航等部門都有權(quán)監(jiān)管噪聲污染,但在存在職權(quán)交叉的情況下沒(méi)有規(guī)定解決的辦法,沒(méi)有一個(gè)統(tǒng)一的協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)。司法上,公民運(yùn)用法律保護(hù)自己環(huán)境權(quán)益的積極性不高,原因之一司法的權(quán)威和公信力未得到公眾的認(rèn)可,現(xiàn)實(shí)中因環(huán)境噪聲污染侵權(quán)得到賠償?shù)陌咐龑?shí)在少之又少。因此,針對(duì)上述原因,從立法、執(zhí)法、司法等方面有針對(duì)性的提出解決措施勢(shì)在必行。從立法上來(lái)說(shuō),需要進(jìn)一步明確“噪聲污染”的概念,使噪聲污染的防治有據(jù)可循。其次,要賦予公民環(huán)境權(quán),為公眾參與奠定權(quán)利基礎(chǔ)。再次,要不斷完善噪聲污染防治制度的管理體制,劃分各環(huán)境保護(hù)行政主管部門的權(quán)責(zé)。最后,要明確噪聲污染侵權(quán)的法律責(zé)任,豐富噪聲污染責(zé)任的形式。從執(zhí)法上來(lái)說(shuō),不但要提高執(zhí)法人員的職業(yè)道德素質(zhì),還要提高執(zhí)法人員的專業(yè)技能,促進(jìn)執(zhí)法手段的多樣化。從司法上來(lái)說(shuō),要完善舉證責(zé)任的分配,這是為了保障受害人的環(huán)境權(quán)益;建立明確的損害賠償制度,這一方面體現(xiàn)了“污染者付費(fèi)”原則,另一方面也是為了平衡雙方當(dāng)事人的利益。
[Abstract]:Although our country's environmental noise pollution prevention and control work started early, but the noise pollution control situation is still not optimistic, the reason mainly exists in the following aspects, from the legislative point of view. Although China's environmental legislation system has been basically formed, but the content of the law is not perfect. For example, although the "Environmental Protection Law" stipulates the system of public participation, but the way of public participation, procedures. However, the rights should not be mentioned, resulting in citizens in the process of participation can not be followed. Although the noise pollution Prevention Law provides that construction needs to be carried out at night, the residents in the vicinity must be notified. However, it is not said how to compensate or compensate for the infringement of the rights and interests of residents. In law enforcement, there is a phenomenon of multiple management and prevarication. Public security, traffic, railway, civil aviation and other departments have the right to supervise noise pollution. However, in the case of overlapping functions and powers, there is no prescribed solution, and there is no unified coordinating body. In the administration of justice, citizens are not highly motivated to use the law to protect their environmental rights and interests. One of the reasons for the authority and credibility of the judiciary has not been recognized by the public, in reality because of environmental noise pollution infringement compensation cases are very few. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, from legislation, law enforcement. It is imperative to put forward some measures to solve the problem in the aspects of judicature and so on. From the legislative point of view, it is necessary to further clarify the concept of "noise pollution" so that the prevention and control of noise pollution can be followed. Secondly, citizens should be given the right to environment. Third, it is necessary to continuously improve the management system of noise pollution prevention and control system, divide the powers and responsibilities of the administrative departments of environmental protection. Finally, it is necessary to clarify the legal liability of noise pollution infringement. Enrich the form of responsibility for noise pollution. In law enforcement, we should not only improve the quality of professional ethics of law enforcement personnel, but also improve the professional skills of law enforcement officials, promote the diversification of law enforcement methods. To improve the distribution of the burden of proof, this is to protect the environmental rights and interests of victims; Establishing a clear system of compensation for damages reflects the "polluter pays" principle on the one hand and balances the interests of both parties on the other.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺(tái)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.68

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張守斌;魏峻山;胡世祥;高鋒亮;秦承華;王洪燕;劉硯華;;中國(guó)環(huán)境噪聲污染防治現(xiàn)狀及建議[J];中國(guó)環(huán)境監(jiān)測(cè);2015年03期

2 晉海;高宇;臧桂芹;;噪聲污染侵權(quán)責(zé)任中“噪聲污染”的界定[J];環(huán)境科技;2015年03期

3 王樹(shù)義;馮汝;;我國(guó)環(huán)境刑事司法的困境及其對(duì)策[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2014年03期

4 韓衛(wèi)平;;我國(guó)環(huán)境司法的制度障礙及法律對(duì)策[J];管理世界;2014年04期

5 蔡彥敏;;對(duì)環(huán)境侵權(quán)受害人的法律救濟(jì)之思考[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2014年02期

6 卓光俊;楊天紅;;環(huán)境公眾參與制度的正當(dāng)性及制度價(jià)值分析[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

7 丁樹(shù)謙;;論噪聲污染及其控制[J];北方環(huán)境;2011年03期

8 李勁;;環(huán)境公益訴訟新探[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年05期

9 李勁;李麗君;;環(huán)境侵權(quán)歸責(zé)原則探究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年03期

10 劉雪榮;劉立霞;;論環(huán)境污染侵權(quán)訴訟中的證明責(zé)任[J];河北法學(xué);2006年10期

，

本文編號(hào)：1392488