Search Results (3)

Since “ecological civilization” was written into the constitution, China has continuously strengthened ecological and environmental protection and innovatively established an environmental public interest litigation system. However, China’s current environmental public interest litigation system is not sound, especially since the types and scope of environmental public interest litigation are unclear, which is the core problem we aim to solve. To explore the types of environmental public interest litigation in China and the possibility of expanding new fields, we first used the normative analysis method to review the legislation of environmental public interest litigation in China and then conducted an empirical analysis of 215 judgment documents of environmental public interest litigation in China, and we concluded that the legal types and scope of application of environmental public interest litigation in China are constantly expanding. To reduce environmental pollution and ecological damage as much as possible, we argue that China should further expand the application of environmental administrative public interest litigation to improve the environmental civil public interest litigation system and adhere to the criteria of “behavior standards first, result standards second” and “prevention first, recovery second”. At the same time, through the internal connection mechanism between procuratorial suggestions and environmental administrative public interest litigation, the external cooperation between environmental organizations, procuratorates, and environmental administrative departments should be strengthened, and a new mechanism for environmental public interest litigation should be established and improved to accumulate useful experience in the judicial protection of China’s ecological environment. Full article

There are two options for environmental tort remedy in China: resorting to environmental administration or environmental justice, with an ongoing debate over which of the two should lead. Firstly, it compares the structure of China’s environmental tort remedy system and the two types of power: administrative power and judicial power, concluding that administrative power is dominant. Then, it argues for the indispensability of judicial power, attempts to find a clear boundary between the two sides, and justifies their mutual division of labor and collaboration. Through sufficient demonstration, it clarifies why the dominant position of environmental administrative power must be guaranteed. Then, it summarizes the experience of other countries and the practice of environmental protection in China; and provides three innovative paths of the future environmental rights remedy system. These three aspects are setting up a review procedure for administrative priority judgment before filing an environmental lawsuit, establishing the independent position of experts in environmental litigation, advocating a risk communication mechanism other than litigation, and providing a richer institutional guarantee for the relief of environmental rights. Full article

This research assessed the role of public interest litigation in the achievement of sustainable waste management in the Addis Ababa Administration (AAA) of Ethiopia. It employed a single country case-oriented comparative research design, and data triangulation was used to establish the validity of the findings. The research first shows Ethiopia’s commitment to sustainable waste management, implementing environmental tax and the command-and-control instruments of the polluter-pays principle and public interest litigation within the context of environmental justice. Secondly, it shows that public interest litigation is one of the innovative techniques in the struggle against waste mismanagement across all legal systems. Thirdly, it demonstrates the potential role of public interest litigation in Ethiopia in encouraging the federal and regional environmental protection and management organs to implement environmental tax and command-and-control instruments. Fourthly, it uncovers that public interest litigation is not fully compatible with the Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia. Fifthly, it shows the failure of the judiciary system of Ethiopia to accommodate environmental courts and tribunals that flexibly and innovatively adopt public interest litigation. Sixthly, it reveals that, in Ethiopia, the scope of public interest standing is highly restrictive for Civil Society Organizations (CSO). Finally, it implies that the legal viability and administrative feasibility of environmental public interest litigation in Ethiopia is in its infancy, and its crystallization is partly contingent on the cautious review of the Civil Procedure Code and CSO laws and on greening the judiciary system. Full article