Читать книгу Green Benches - Yi Chen - Страница 5

Environment courts, as well as tribunals with expertise in environmental matters, have been increasingly recognized for their accomplishments and further potential in promoting ecologically sustainable development. These environment courts and tribunals play a central role in enforcing compliance with environmental laws by judging claims and interpreting laws, enforcing rights, and providing forums for dispute resolution.

Various countries have pursued different paths in empowering their domestic court systems to enforce environmental laws. In the United States, for instance, most environmental disputes continue to be decided by courts of general jurisdiction, applying principles of general and administrative law. In Australia and New Zealand, specialized courts composed of judges and technical experts focus exclusively on environmental disputes. The Government of Thailand created a special division within its judicial system to handle environmental cases, while the Philippine Supreme Court designated existing courts around the country as environment courts, in an attempt to rationalize the diversified jurisdictions related to environmental law.

In the People’s Republic of China (PRC), environmental disputes are generally decided in the people’s courts, which are courts of general jurisdiction. Since 1989, however, the development of environment courts has accelerated, with 11 of them being established for pilot cases.

Environment courts in countries around the world have been shown to help solve problems such as illegal dumping or discharge of wastes, open burning of waste, and health code violations. They have also been shown to lighten the burden of general jurisdiction courts by taking over large numbers of pending cases. Most important, there has been an increase in compliance and in the number of violators punished in areas where environment courts exist.

The benefits of specialized environment courts include:

(i)	creating a comprehensive, integrated jurisdiction that deals with a range of environmental matters—a “one-stop shop” for merit appeals, judicial reviews, and criminal and civil enforcement;
(ii)	providing a forum for experts in environmental law where they can engage in a free and beneficial exchange of ideas and information;
(iii)	enabling the formation of panels of officers with expertise for the purpose of interdisciplinary decision making;
(iv)	facilitating the development of specialized knowledge of environmental law and issues;
(v)	allowing the adoption of a holistic approach to the resolution of environmental matters, through comprehensive jurisdictions and interdisciplinary decision making;
(vi)	furthering the use of innovative practices and procedures, such as public interest litigation, to broaden access to justice;
(vii)	encouraging innovative solutions to environmental problems;
(viii)	fostering the growth of a coherent and consistent body of environmental precedents and jurisprudence;
(ix)	making possible the quick progress of complex environmental cases, thereby boosting the efficiency and reducing the cost of litigation;
(x)	relieving other courts of some of their backlogs by taking over cases involving environmental issues and resolving them more efficiently; and
(xi)	appealing to the conscience of the public, thereby encouraging adherence to environmental laws and greater participation in programs to protect the environment.

Generally, the establishment of an environment court system involves a few critical steps. First, there has to be some form of enabling legislation or legal foundation that will specify the number, scope, jurisdiction, procedures, and powers of the environment courts. Accomplishing this step would entail identifying existing institutions that are already enforcing environmental regulations, as well as determining the number of cases encountered and then disposed of on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis.

Once it is decided that there is a need for environment courts, the next step is choosing the mode of formal organization. Other important factors to be considered are budgetary constraints; proper training of judges and court personnel; and sufficient and effective regulation, legislation, and ordinances, including guidelines for environment court procedures and sanctions.

The indicators of the effectiveness of environment courts, such as the number of cases filed, the speed with which cases are resolved, the number of judgments made and enforced, and any change in the attitude or behavior of the public, must be monitored to help the courts better their performance. Apart from the environment courts, supplementary units such as an environmental defenders office, a legal aid mechanism, environmental forensics facilities, and venues for alternative dispute resolution must also be given primary consideration, as they could play an important role in improving environmental justice.

Since 1998, there has been an average yearly increase of 25% in the number of environmental lawsuits received by the people’s courts in the PRC. In 2005 alone, that number reached a record of nearly 700,000. There is still, however, a severe shortage of specialized environment courts relative to the number of environmental cases filed. In contrast to other specialized courts, environment courts make up only a small fraction of the 3,500 people’s courts and the more than 10,000 people’s tribunals. However, the total number of compensation cases arising from environmental pollution in 2003 alone reached 1,543, equivalent to one-half the yearly average of cases filed before the maritime courts in 20 years (1984–2004), or two-thirds the average of first-instance intellectual property rights cases filed nationwide each year.

There is thus a clear need for more specialized environment courts. In fact, the number of environmental cases is expected to rise as the PRC’s economy grows. If it continues to rise at the current rate of 25% per annum, the number of first-instance environmental cases will increase 2.4 times in 5 years and 7.4 times in 10 years. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the percentage of environmental disputes that are brought to court is expected to increase, from the current rate of about 3% to about 10% within 5 years. The rapid upsurge in the number of environmental lawsuits, together with a decreasing number of judges in the PRC, makes the need for an expanded environment court system all the more urgent.

There are other compelling reasons for the further development of environment courts in the PRC. One is that judges require specialized knowledge for environmental cases, and they could hone that knowledge through experience in newly established environment courts. Another reason is that the complicated nature of environmental cases leads to the need for special agencies for coordination, which the existing people’s courts have difficulty in handling.

Despite the need for environment courts in the PRC, progress has been slow. The current state of the PRC’s environment courts reveals a variety of problems, such as the lack of responsible organizations, professional expertise, and constructive policies. In particular, the major problems of the PRC’s environment courts are: (i) limited access to such courts, (ii) insufficient training of most judges in environmental law, (iii) lack of interest among victims of environmental pollution in using the courts to protect their rights, (iv) refusal of most courts to accept environment cases, (v) inconsistencies in environmental case judgments, (vi) difficulties in enforcing court orders in environment cases, and (vii) weak regulatory support for environmental justice.

Long-established environment court systems around the world can provide vital lessons to those countries, including the PRC, that are examining their own domestic systems, and looking to improve court affordability, encourage alternative dispute resolution, train “green” judges, raise court administrative efficiency, promote public awareness and participation, and monitor and evaluate court performance.

There are six possible modes of strengthening the environment court system in the PRC: (i) establishing collegial panels, each having an odd number of members and observing the rule of the majority; (ii) holding environment court trials within the basic people’s court system; (iii) setting up an environmental protection division within the existing court system; (iv) extending the authority of existing specialized courts to include environmental disputes; (v) establishing a central environment court with nationwide jurisdiction, equivalent to intermediate or higher courts in the general judicial system; and (vi) creating a circuit court for environmental protection.

The authors think that the most feasible approach would be a blending of the third and sixth modes. That would mean the combined creation of (i) environmental protection divisions within the intermediate people’s courts, higher people’s courts, and the Supreme People’s Court for the sole purpose of hearing trials of criminal, civil, and administrative environmental cases within their jurisdictions; and (ii) dedicated circuit courts to deal with first-instance hearings of minor environmental cases. Environmental protection divisions in selected provinces and municipalities should handle the registration of environmental lawsuits, as well as the enforcement of judgments in nonlitigation (administrative) environmental cases.

The authors recommend that the environment court system of the PRC expand gradually, through three stages: (i) pilot testing in local courts, (ii) nationwide dissemination, and (iii) institutionalization through legislation.

The experiences of other countries, such as those mentioned above, can provide models for policies to be followed after an expanded environment court system is in place. For instance, the PRC should work to improve access to justice and court affordability. Then it should establish venues for alternative dispute resolution to save on costs, time, and resources. Further training of environmentally oriented judges will be essential to promote competent decision making. There should be measures to improve court administrative efficiency, such as additional personnel, system streamlining, and other capacity building efforts. Another essential policy will be the promotion of public awareness and participation through the practice of open justice and court accountability. Finally, there should be regular court performance assessments to monitor and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of specialized environment courts.