生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任研究

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

代天雨

导师:

赵爽

导师单位:

经济法学院(生态法学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

生态环境损害赔偿诉讼;因果关系;举证责任

摘要:

近年来,随着生态环境保护政策的不断出台,生态环境损害赔偿案件不断增加,该 类案件有的磋商结案,有的则因磋商不成而进入诉讼阶段。因果关系举证责任是生态环 境损害赔偿诉讼的关键环节,本文结合法律规定,对司法案件进行统计和梳理,分析司 法实践中因果关系举证责任存在的问题及其原因,并提出完善建议。除了引言和总结外, 本文主体部分一共包括三个部分。 第一部分对生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任法律规定与司法实践进行分 析。包括梳理相关法律规定、界定法律规定中与研究对象相关的概念,以及分析司法实 践中样本总体特征和具体做法。上述分析为后续分析司法实践中存在问题及其原因奠定 了基础。 第二部分通过案例分析,总结司法实践中生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任 存在的问题,并分析造成该问题的原因。第一,法院对生态环境损害赔偿诉讼性质的理 解存在争议,而对诉讼性质的理解一定程度上会影响因果关系举证责任相关规则的适用。 分析其原因,从私益诉讼说、国益诉讼说、私益公益诉讼的角度理解,该诉讼性质为私 益诉讼,而从公益诉讼说的角度理解,则会得出相反观点。第二,原告方完成关联性举 证责任是适用因果关系举证责任倒置的前提,所以司法实践中还存在关联性证明标准不 明确的问题。这主要是因为关联性证明标准有待进一步明确和细化。第三,因果关系举 证责任倒置的适用范围存在争议。造成该种问题的原因是,《民法典》生效前,法院对 是否参照适用举证责任倒置持不同观点,而《民法典》生效后,其第一千二百三十条的 适用范围存在不同的解释空间。 第三部分针对存在问题,对完善生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任提出了建 议。第一,明晰生态环境损害赔偿诉讼特殊公益诉讼的性质。第二,明确生态环境损害 赔偿诉讼中关联性证明标准。第三,明确因果关系举证责任倒置对生态环境损害赔偿诉 讼适用的相关问题。

学科:

法律*

提交日期

2026-04-02

引用参考

代天雨. 生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2022.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任研究
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20200351021944
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 代天雨
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 经济法学院(生态法学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2022
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 赵爽
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 经济法学院(生态法学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 生态环境损害赔偿诉讼;因果关系;举证责任
  • dc.subject
  • Ecological damage compensation lawsuit;Causation;The burden of proof
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 近年来,随着生态环境保护政策的不断出台,生态环境损害赔偿案件不断增加,该 类案件有的磋商结案,有的则因磋商不成而进入诉讼阶段。因果关系举证责任是生态环 境损害赔偿诉讼的关键环节,本文结合法律规定,对司法案件进行统计和梳理,分析司 法实践中因果关系举证责任存在的问题及其原因,并提出完善建议。除了引言和总结外, 本文主体部分一共包括三个部分。 第一部分对生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任法律规定与司法实践进行分 析。包括梳理相关法律规定、界定法律规定中与研究对象相关的概念,以及分析司法实 践中样本总体特征和具体做法。上述分析为后续分析司法实践中存在问题及其原因奠定 了基础。 第二部分通过案例分析,总结司法实践中生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任 存在的问题,并分析造成该问题的原因。第一,法院对生态环境损害赔偿诉讼性质的理 解存在争议,而对诉讼性质的理解一定程度上会影响因果关系举证责任相关规则的适用。 分析其原因,从私益诉讼说、国益诉讼说、私益公益诉讼的角度理解,该诉讼性质为私 益诉讼,而从公益诉讼说的角度理解,则会得出相反观点。第二,原告方完成关联性举 证责任是适用因果关系举证责任倒置的前提,所以司法实践中还存在关联性证明标准不 明确的问题。这主要是因为关联性证明标准有待进一步明确和细化。第三,因果关系举 证责任倒置的适用范围存在争议。造成该种问题的原因是,《民法典》生效前,法院对 是否参照适用举证责任倒置持不同观点,而《民法典》生效后,其第一千二百三十条的 适用范围存在不同的解释空间。 第三部分针对存在问题,对完善生态环境损害赔偿诉讼因果关系举证责任提出了建 议。第一,明晰生态环境损害赔偿诉讼特殊公益诉讼的性质。第二,明确生态环境损害 赔偿诉讼中关联性证明标准。第三,明确因果关系举证责任倒置对生态环境损害赔偿诉 讼适用的相关问题。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In recent years, with the introduction of ecological protection policies, there have been more cases for ecological damage compensation, and some of these cases have been settled by negotiation, while others have entered the lawsuit stage due to failure to negotiate. In legal proceedings involving compensation for ecological damage, there is a need to focus on the burden of proof of causation because it is significant. With reference to the legal provisions, this thesis provides statistics and sorting of judicial cases, and analyses the problems of the burden of proof of causation and its causes in judicial practice, as well as to offer suggestions for enhancement. Besides the introduction and the summary, the main part of this thesis consists of three parts in total. The first part analyses the legal provisions and judicial practice on the burden of proof of causation in ecological damage compensation lawsuit. It includes a review of the relevant legal provisions, a definition of the concepts related to the subject of the study, and an analysis of the general characteristics and specific practices of the sample in judicial practice. The above analysis lays the foundation for the subsequent analysis of the problems in judicial practice and their causes. The second part summarises the issues with the burden of proof for causation in ecological damage compensation lawsuit in judicial practice through case analysis, and analyses the reasons for the problems. Firstly, the courts' understanding of the nature of ecological damage compensation lawsuit is controversial, and the understanding of the nature of lawsuit will, to a certain extent, affect the application of the rules on the burden of proof for causation. Analyzing the reasons for this, the nature of the lawsuit is private interest lawsuit when understood from the perspective of the private interest lawsuit theory, the state interest lawsuit theory and the private interest public interest lawsuit theory, while the opposite view is reached when understood from the perspective of the public interest lawsuit theory. Secondly, the plaintiff's side to complete the burden of proof of relevance is the premise of the application of the reversal of the burden of proof of causation, so there is a problem of unclear standards of proof of relevance in judicial practice. This is mainly because the standard of proof of relevance needs to be further clarified and refined. Thirdly, the scope of application of the reversal of the burden of proof for causation is controversial. The reason for this problem is that before the entry into force of the Civil Code, the courts held differentviews on whether to apply the reversal of the burden of proof by reference, and after the entry into force of the Civil Code, there is room for different interpretations of the scope of application of its Article 1230. In response to the above issues, the third part offers recommendations for improving the burden of proof for causation in ecological damage compensation lawsuit. Firstly, to clarify the special public interest lawsuit nature of ecological damage compensation lawsuit. Secondly, to clarify the standard of proof of relevance in ecological damage compensation lawsuit. Thirdly, to clarify the issues related to the application of the reversal of the burden of proof of causation to ecological damage compensation lawsuit.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-04-02
回到顶部