本篇论文目录导航：

【第1部分】 环境侵权举证责任倒置规则研究
【第2部分】美德日的环境侵权因果关系理论与实践
【第3部分】我国环境侵权因果关系的立法发展与司法实践
【第4部分】对我国环境侵权因果关系理论和实践的分析与反思
【第5部分】环境侵权因果关系探究结论与参考文献

　　摘 要

　　自 1978 年以来，伴随着党中央提出的改革开放，我国经济进入了高速发展的快车道，人民生活水平得到了大幅度的提高。但伴随着三十余年的发展，全国各地的水污染、大气污染、土壤污染、自然破坏等形形色色的公害与环境破坏却日渐恶化。为此，很多人的健康被侵蚀，宝贵的生命被吞噬，环境侵权成为了社会关注的大问题。

　　环境侵权和一般侵权相比较，它既有一般侵权所具有的一般特征，又具有其独有的特点，如高度的科学性、长时间性、跨地域性等等。在归责原则方面，二者又有所不同，一般侵权通常采用过错责任原则，而环境侵权则采用了无过错责任原则。这就使得在环境侵权的构成要件中，因果关系如何认定成为环境侵权能否成立的重要因素，因此各国学者开始更加重视对环境侵权因果关系问题的研究。

　　鉴于环境侵权所具有的上述独有的特征，如果坚持适用传统的因果关系理论即必然因果关系理论，那么可能会出现这样一种现象，即受害人受到损害，却由于难以认定因果关系而无法获得赔偿。为了避免类似情况的发生，各国学者积极探索，在环境侵权领域提出了一系列新的因果关系理论和学说，如盖然性理论、疫学因果关系学说、间接反证理论等。笔者通过阐述美国、日本、德国三个国家的一些典型案例，进而分析上述各种因果关系理论和学说的相互关系、优势及不足。

　　在环境侵权因果关系理论方面，由于受到前苏联的较大影响，我国曾一度坚持适用必然因果关系理论。但随着法制国家建设的推行，学者们也意识到必然因果关系理论不符合唯物辩证法，开始对必然因果关系理论提出了质疑。随着一些新学说的出现，我国学者对如何借鉴这些学说又提出了不同意见。有的学者认为应该在摒弃必然因果关系理论的基础上借鉴这些新学说；也有的学者认为应该在必然因果关系理论的基础上借鉴这些新学说。无论是哪一种借鉴，无疑都可以说是我国在该领域的一种进步，是对必然因果关系理论的扬弃，也更加地符合我国的国情。与此相配套，因果关系规则也从司法解释上升到了一般法律，即由最初的《关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》和《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》，到《中华人民共和国固体废物污染环境防治法》和《中华人民共和国水污染防治法》，再到新颁布的《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》。

　　但是，笔者作为一名基层法院的民事法官，通过对一起环境侵权案件的审理，认识到我国现行法律关于环境侵权因果关系规则（即举证责任倒置规则）实际上是一种举证责任分配的调整，即只是在证明责任的范畴内进行了规定，而没有从证明方法上进行规定，也就是我国立法上并没有明确规定因果关系推定规则。笔者通过从法律规范、适用条件、与无过错责任搭配等方面对举证责任倒置规则与因果关系推定规则进行了比较分析，认为因果关系推定规则更适合于环境侵权领域中的因果关系认定。理由如下：举证责任倒置规则将证明责任全部置于加害者一方，无疑是加重了加害者的责任；虽然加害者与受害者相比处于强势地位，但这种比较是相对的，有时相对于自然科学来说，二者可能处于同等地位甚至是相反地位；而且该规则在现实中也加大了受害者滥诉的可能性。与此相对照的是，因果关系推定规则比较科学地、客观地分配了证明责任。

　　环境侵权受害人往往处于弱势地位，所以只要求其对一些客观的、初步的事项达到较低的盖然性加以证明即可，如果作为受害者连这些基本事项都无法证明的话，就可能因举证不能而承担相应的法律后果。相对于处于强势的加害者来说，也并不是免除了其对因果关系的证明，而是要在受害者提供初步证据后，法官内心确认该因果关系成立的情况下，对加害者提出更高的证明要求。从经济发展角度来看，一般来说，加害者往往都是当地经济发展的支柱企业，如果对于加害者的要求太过于苛刻的话，会影响当地乃至全国的经济发展，由此还会导致工人下岗、刑事犯罪增加等一系列社会不安定情况的频发。当然仅仅制定因果关系推定规则还不够，还需要建立与之相配套的规定如证明标准、证明方法等，这就要求我国立法者在认清我国的实际情况下，有选择性地借鉴美国、德国、日本等国家的科学理论和实践经验，从而制定出一套符合我国国情的环境侵权因果关系法律规则，以便既保证企业的正常生产经营，促进经济高速发展，同时又使受害者得到了及时地赔偿。

　　关键词：环境侵权，因果关系，证明责任分配，举证责任倒置，因果关系推定

　　Abstract

　　Since 1978, along with the party central committee put forward the reform andopening up, China's economy has entered the fast lane of development, and People'sliving standard has been greatly improved .But with more than thirty years ofdevelopment, the country's water pollution, air pollution, soil pollution, naturaldestruction of every hue of pollution and environmental destruction is deteriorating.

　　Therefore, a lot of people's health has been eroded, precious life is swallowed, theenvironmental tort has become a big concern of society.

　　Compared with the general tort, environment tort has the general characteristicswhich the general tort has, but it also has its unique ones, such as long-term, latent,complexity etc. In terms of imputation principle, the two is different, general tortgenerally adopts the principle of fault liability, While the environment infringementis USES the principle of no fault liability. This makes in the components of theenvironment infringement, how to identify the causal relationship becomes theimportant factor of whether environment tort can be set up or not. So the study ofenvironmental tort causation problems has started to attract more attentions from thescholars all over the world.

　　In view of the unique characteristics of environment tort has, If we insist onusing the traditional theory of causation or the causal relationship theory, there maybe such a phenomenon, namely, the victim is damaged, but unable to obtaincompensation because of the difficulty in the identification of causality . To avoidthis situation, the scholars of various countries who are actively exploring in the fieldof environmental tort have put forward a series of new causality theories, such astheory of probability, epidemiology causality theory, indirect disproof theory etc.

　　The author expounds on the United States, Japan, Germany, the three countries ofsome typical cases, and then analyzed the theories of causality and mutual relations,the advantages and disadvantages of the theory.

　　In the theory of the causation of environment tort, because influenced byneighboring countries of the former Soviet Union, China once insisted to applycausal relationship theory. But with the national legal system constructionimplementation, scholars have realized that dialectical materialism is not inconformity with the causal relationship theory, so they began to question the causalrelationship theory. With the emergence of some new theories, scholars in ourcountry put forward different views on how to draw lessons from these theories.

　　Some scholars believe that we should learn from these new theories based onabandoning the theory of causal relationship; while the others think that we shoulddraw lessons from these new theories based on it. No matter what kind of reference,there is no doubt that it is a kind of progress in this field in our country, and not onlythe sublation of causal relationship theory, but also more in line with China's nationalconditions. Matched with this, causal rules from the judicial interpretation up to thegeneral law, from the initial “ On the applicable opinions on some issues of the civilprocedure law of the People's Republic of China” and“ The provisions about the civilaction evidence”, to“ The People's Republic of China on the prevention and controlof environmental pollution by solid waste ”and“ The People's Republic of China onthe prevention and control of water pollution”, to the new promulgated “ tort liabilitylaw ”.

　　But, as a lower court judge, based on the environmental tort cases together, toclarify our country about the causality of environment tort rules （i.e. The onusprofaned inversion rules） is actually a kind of allocation of the burden of adjustment.

　　That is just within the category of the burden of proof for the rules, but not fromproof method on rules, in other words, our criminal law does not clearly define thecausality presumption rules. The author through the legal norms, applicablecondition, and no-fault liability collocation of onus profaned inversion rules,analyzed the causation presumption rules, and thinks the causality presumption rulesis more suitable for causal relationships in the field of environmental infringement.

　　The reasons are as follows: Onus profaned inversion puts all the burden of proof theinflicted party rules, is undoubtedly exacerbated the offender responsibilities,although the perpetrators and victims than in the strong position, but this kind ofcomparison is relative, sometimes compared to the natural sciences, the two may bein the same position or even the opposite position, But the rules in reality alsoincrease the possibility of a victim rampant litigationAnd presumption of causation is more scientific, objective burden of proof onthe matters assigned, victims of environmental tort, often in a weak position, so onlyask for some objective, preliminary matters to the lower probability to be proved, ifthese basic matters as the victims are unable to prove it, so he could face because ofproof cannot undertake the corresponding adverse legal consequences. Compared tothe offender who is strong, is not exempt from the causal relationship between theproofs, but to reach a certain standard of proof in the victim, the judge to confirm theestablishment of the cause and effect relationship, is presented to demonstrate thehigher request to the offender. From the perspective of economic development, ingeneral, the perpetrators are often the backbone enterprise in the development of thelocal economy, if the perpetrators are too harsh words, will affect the local andnational economic development, which will lead to increase of laid off workers,crime and a series of social unrest situation and frequent. Of course, just make thecausality presumption rules is not enough, also need to establish the relevantprovisions such as matching with the standard of proof, proof methods, The actualsituation which requires our legislators in recognize Chinese, selectively referencethe scientific theories and practical experience of USA, Germany, Japan and othercountries, thus set a causal relationship between environmental tort law rules whichaccords with the situation of our country. In order to guarantee the normalproduction and operation of enterprises, to promote rapid economic development,and also gives the victim compensation in a timely manner.

　　Keywords:Environmental Tort, Causality, distribution of burden of proof, inversion ofburden of proof, presumption of causal relationship
 

　　目 录

　　摘 要

　　Abstract

　　引 言

　　一、 美德日的环境侵权因果关系理论与实践

　　（一） 美国的环境侵权因果关系理论与实践

　　（二） 德国的环境侵权因果关系理论

　　（三） 日本的环境侵权因果关系理论及实践

　　二、 我国环境侵权因果关系的立法发展与司法实践

　　（一）“谁主张，谁举证”规则

　　（二） 司法解释中的“举证责任倒置”规则

　　（三）《侵权责任法》中“举证责任倒置”规则

　　三、 对我国环境侵权因果关系理论和实践的分析与反思

　　（一） 对我国环境侵权因果关系理论的分析

　　（二） 对我国环境侵权因果关系立法实践的分析

　　（三） 对我国环境侵权因果关系司法实践的反思

　　结 论

　　参 考 文 献

　　致 谢

返回本篇论文导航