公私法协动视野下生态环境损害赔偿的理论构成
冯洁语公私法协动视野下生态环境损害赔偿的理论构成
Compensation for Ecological and Environmental Damage in the View of Coordinating Public Law and Private Law
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：冯洁语
单位：南京大学法学院、中德法学研究所
中文关键词：生态环境损害;环境权;损害;恢复原状
英文关键词：ecological and environmental damage; environmental right; damage; restoration to the original condition
中文摘要：
生态环境损害赔偿涉及私法与公法的协动。从比较法来看，私法在生态环境损害赔偿中的作用有两种解释路径：一是依托既有权利（如所有权、健康权等）受侵害，扩张损害概念，从责任范围层面涵盖生态利益；二是创设环境权或环境秩序权，从责任成立层面涵盖生态利益。两种进路的背后反映了对于公私法关系的不同认识，前者认为公法、私法并行救济，后者则认为私法救济优先。我国环境法学说传统上采第二种进路，而《生态环境损害赔偿制度改革方案》和"民法典草案"则有采扩张损害概念的整合进路的趋势。我国目前立法与司法实践仍存在体系上的龃龉。应当贯彻扩张损害的思路，在构成侵权的情况下，在责任范围中考虑生态利益。在不构成侵权的情况下，具体考量生态环境损害赔偿能否类推适用民法的规则。
英文摘要：
Compensation for ecological and environmental damage involves the coordination of the private law and the public law. From the perspective of comparative law, there are two approaches to explain the role of the private law in the compensation for ecological and environmental damage. The first one is to expand the concept of damage based on the infringement of existing private rights (such as ownership, health, etc.) to cover ecological interests on the level of the scope of responsibility. The second one is to create environmental rights or environmental order rights to cover ecological interests on the level of the establishment of responsibility. These two approaches reflect different understandings on the relationship between the public law and the private law. The former considers the public law and the private law as parallel reliefs, while the latter considers the private law relief as a priority. China's environmental law theory traditionally adopts the second approach, while the Draft Chinese Civil Code and the Plan for Reforming the System of Compensation for Ecological and Environmental Damage tend to adopt the integrated approach to expanding the concept of damage. There are still systemic problems in Chinese legislation and judicial practice in this area. The idea of expanding the concept of damage should be implemented, and in the cases of environmental tort, ecological interests should be considered on the level of the scope of responsibility. In the cases without environmental tort, whether the civil rules can be applied by analogy in the compensation for ecological and environmental damage should be specifically considered.
全文阅读： 点击下载
