环境公益诉讼原告资格之确立要点分析.docVIP

环境公益诉讼原告资格之确立 ——扩大“合法权益”的范围还是确立自然物的原告资格？ 严厚福(（北京大学法学院） On the Establishment of Standing of Environmental Public Interest Suit in China ——Expanding the Scope of “lawful rights and interests” or Establishing the Standing of Natural Objects? Yan Houfu (Peking University Law School) 内容摘要：本文以2005年年底北京大学法学院六师生提起的中国大陆第一起以自然物作为共同原告的环境公益诉讼为切入点，着重分析未来中国如何确立环境公益诉讼的原告资格。通过回顾西方国家历史和当前的理论学说和司法实践就环境公益诉讼的原告资格问题所主张的两条不同进路——一是扩大“合法权益”的范围，使得更多的“人”享有原告资格；二是在立法上确立自然物尤其是濒危物种的原告资格，本文指出：在设计未来中国环境公益诉讼的原告资格制度时，这两条进路各有所长，具体选择哪一条进路，还有待历史的检验。 关键字：环境公益诉讼 原告资格 损害 自然物 环境权 Abstract: In December 2005, six professors and graduates from Peking University Law School brought the first environmental public interest suit in Chinese mainland in which the human and the natural objects are co-plaintiffs, and this unusual case brought about many heated discussions on whether the natural objects, especially the endangered species, could have standing. In this article, the author review the legal theories and practices of foreign countries on the standing issues of environmental public interest suit in history and present, and point out there are two practical approaches in solving the standing issues: one is to expand the scope of “injury” so as more persons could have standing; the other is to establish the standing of natural objects, especially the endangered species in the statutes. As a conclusion, the author point out when China is going to establish environmental public interest suit in the future, those two above-mentioned approaches both have advantages and disadvantages. Which approach China will pursue depends on the choice of history and time. Key Word: Environmental Public Interest Suit, Standing, Injury, Natural Objects, Environmental Rights 一、引言：中国第一起以自然物作为共同原告的环境公益诉讼案件 2005年11月13日，中国石油天然气集团公司所属中国石油天然气股份有限公司吉林分公司双苯厂(101厂)的苯胺车间因操作错误发生剧烈爆炸并引起大火，导致100吨苯类污染物进入松花江水体（含苯和硝基苯，属难溶于水的剧毒、致癌化学品），导致江水硝基苯和苯严重超标，造成整个松花江流域严重生态环境破坏。　 　　2005年12月7日，北京大学法学院三位教授及三位研究生向黑龙江省高级人民法院提起了国内第一起以自然物（鲟鳇鱼、松花江、太阳岛）