北方法学
北方法學
북방법학
Northern Legal Science
2015年
6期
66-76
,共11页
美国%PM2. 5%法律机制
美國%PM2. 5%法律機製
미국%PM2. 5%법률궤제
America%PM2. 5%legal mechanism
PM2.5对健康和环境有严重危害，已成全球性环境问题。上世纪90年代中期至今，美国形成了削减 PM2.5的法律机制。该机制以准据法、标准法、实施法、相关法、地方法组成的法律体系为基础，以命令统制型环境行政管理为主要构成，以司法的频繁介入为纠偏和保障，以判例法与制定法的相互配合为回应，形成了“命令统制为主、经济刺激为辅、司法纠偏为补”的多元削减模式，彰显出合目的性、灵活性、实用性等特征。因实行广泛而严格的规制方法和技术性手法，在联邦制定法上具有划时代意义。但是，该机制过于重视效率而损害公平，过于重视市场方法而出现环境非正义事态，司法介入往往受政党掣肘而陷入法律工具主义漩涡，为各国的 PM2.5法律应对提供了经验和教训。
PM2.5對健康和環境有嚴重危害，已成全毬性環境問題。上世紀90年代中期至今，美國形成瞭削減 PM2.5的法律機製。該機製以準據法、標準法、實施法、相關法、地方法組成的法律體繫為基礎，以命令統製型環境行政管理為主要構成，以司法的頻繁介入為糾偏和保障，以判例法與製定法的相互配閤為迴應，形成瞭“命令統製為主、經濟刺激為輔、司法糾偏為補”的多元削減模式，彰顯齣閤目的性、靈活性、實用性等特徵。因實行廣汎而嚴格的規製方法和技術性手法，在聯邦製定法上具有劃時代意義。但是，該機製過于重視效率而損害公平，過于重視市場方法而齣現環境非正義事態，司法介入往往受政黨掣肘而陷入法律工具主義漩渦，為各國的 PM2.5法律應對提供瞭經驗和教訓。
PM2.5대건강화배경유엄중위해，이성전구성배경문제。상세기90년대중기지금，미국형성료삭감 PM2.5적법률궤제。해궤제이준거법、표준법、실시법、상관법、지방법조성적법률체계위기출，이명령통제형배경행정관리위주요구성，이사법적빈번개입위규편화보장，이판례법여제정법적상호배합위회응，형성료“명령통제위주、경제자격위보、사법규편위보”적다원삭감모식，창현출합목적성、령활성、실용성등특정。인실행엄범이엄격적규제방법화기술성수법，재련방제정법상구유화시대의의。단시，해궤제과우중시효솔이손해공평，과우중시시장방법이출현배경비정의사태，사법개입왕왕수정당체주이함입법률공구주의선와，위각국적 PM2.5법률응대제공료경험화교훈。
Emissions of PM2. 5 has become a worldwide environmental problem because of its serious harm to health and environment. Since the mid - nineties in the twentieth century,the American government has established a legal mechanism to reduce emissions of PM2. 5,which is based on the legal system consisting of applicable laws,laws on standard,laws on implementation,pertinent laws and local laws. This mechanism mainly consists of environmental administration of the commanding control and the frequent judicial interven-tions act as rectification and guarantee,and the interaction between the case law and the enacted law as re-sponse. Bearing the features of purposefulness,flexibility and practicability,this multiple pattern of reduction has been formed in which“commanding control functions as priority,economic stimulus as coordination and judicial rectification as complement”. This mechanism is of epoch - making significance in the Federal statuto-ry laws for its broad and strict regulation methods and technical skills. Yet unfortunately,such mechanism fo-cuses so much on efficiency that has damaged fairness,and pays so much attention to regulations on market that leads to environmental injustice. Moreover,the judicial intervention is inclined to be plunged into legal instrumentalism for political constraints. These lessons should be cherished for other countries in legislation on emission of PM2. 5.
