作者：胡静
作者介绍：中国政法大学民商经济法学院副教授，法学博士
出版日期：2017年10月9日
内容提要 环境权的规范效力包括可诉性效力和具体化效力。可诉性效力指环境权直接作为审判依据,具体化效力指借由立法间接影响审判。国外环境权诉讼中,结合宪法环境权规范和立法的具体条款作出裁判的案例同时体现可诉性效力和具体化效力;仅以宪法环境权规范为依据的案例,只运用可诉性效力,是为环境权的自我执行。环境权的自我执行违背了形式理性优先于实质理性的原则和权力分立原则,仅在宪法司法化的国家处于环境立法体系尚未建立的阶段有必要性。宪法环境权规范没有规定法定效果,属于原则范畴,其适用方式是和其他原则进行衡量,经由具体化为立法中的规则发挥作用。审理案件时,法院应优先适用立法(具体化效力),在立法存在歧义或者冲突时,法院可以借助对宪法环境权的解释厘清立法的模糊之处(可诉性效力)。我国目前环境立法比较系统,很大程度上消解了环境权诉讼的必要性;宪法尚未司法化更是彻底否定了环境权诉讼的可行性。不过,环境权入宪仍具有积极意义。
关键词 环境权 规范效力 可诉性
Abstract: The normative validities of environmental right include the validity of justiciability and concretization. The validity of justiciability means that environmental right is directly used as the basis for trial, and the validity of concretization means it is indirectly used as the basis for trial by legislation. Within environmental right lawsuits in foreign countries, some combine environmental right in constitution with clauses in legislation and meanwhile apply the validity of justiciability and concretization. Some only apply environmental right in the constitution and the validity of justiciability, namely, self execution. Self-execution violates the principle that formal rationality is superior to substantive rationality and the doctrine of separation of powers, however, it is only necessary when environmental legislation system is not yet established in the country with constitutional judicature. Constitutional environmental right has no corresponding legal consequence, belongs to the category of principle. It takes effect by weigh with other principles and concretization to the rule of legislation. The court must apply legislation (concretization) first, then apply the interpretation of constitutionality only when legislation is ambiguous or inconsistent (justiciability). However, justiciability of environmental right in China has no necessity because of the relatively systematic legislation and has no feasibility because of absence of constitutional judicature. However, constitutionalization of environmental right makes sense.