论“热带雨林出租案”对环境法制建设的贡献

发布时间：2018-04-04 08:35

本文选题：起诉资格　切入点：可诉性权利　出处：《中国海洋大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：“热带雨林出租案”是菲律宾最高法院历史上最为出名的案件之一，十多年过去了，作为环境保护史上的一个重大判决，此案仍然在国际上被人们传颂着。许多学者认为此案扩大了适格原告的范围，承认了未出生的尚未处于菲律宾法律管辖之下的后代人的起诉资格。而事实上，菲律宾最高法院在原告是否适格这一点上，通常采用比较民主宽松的方针，此案仅仅是继承了最高院沿袭的一贯方针，而当代人也完全可以以自己的名义对任何损害他们权利的行为提起诉讼，即使他们没有提及后代人权利，最高法院也会对其起诉资格予以认可。此案中最高法院声称后代人的权利应被保护，许多持相同观点的学者偏向引用此案例。实际上，“代际公平”理论在本案中毫无意义。法院虽然承认了原告有权利为了维护其自身及其后代的利益提起诉讼，，但并非承认后代人单独的请求权。此案中原告的利益和其后代的利益是一致的，后代人单独的利益要求是没有必要的。在环境保护方面，此案也未对政府的行为产生实质性的影响。最高法院判决将案件发回原审法院重审，建议原告将所有的伐木许可证持有者列为被告，而在此之后，原审原告没有再起诉。因此，实际上没有任何一项伐木许可被取消。总的来说，雨林案值得称颂，既不是因为菲律宾最高法院提出的关于代际责任和代际公平的言论，也不是其支持的为后代人起诉的诉讼资格，而是因为它提出宪法中平衡和健康的生态权利可以作为一项具体可诉的权利。此案的判决将宪法上的一项政策性宣言变成了一项合法的环境权利，有了这么一项可诉的具体权利，受害者就可以向负责管理国家资源开发利用和保存的环境与自然资源部提起诉讼。此案的贡献就在于为环境保护的诉讼提供了这么一个诉求或理由。然而，此诉因也是不成立的，在此案中,无论是原告还是法院都没有指出一个确切的支持原告诉求的公民权利，宪法关于平衡和健康的生态环境的权利的条款虽然是基本的,但并不具体到可诉的程度，之后出现的和娜尔斯案及马尼拉湾案进一步说明了这一点。
[Abstract]:The Rain Forest Rent is one of the most famous cases in the history of the Philippine Supreme Court. More than a decade later, as a major ruling in the history of environmental protection, the case is still being heard internationally.Many scholars say the case extends the scope of the plaintiffs to unborn descendants who are not yet subject to Philippine law.In fact, the Philippine Supreme Court usually adopts a more democratic and lenient approach to the suitability of the plaintiffs. This case merely inherits the consistent policy adopted by the Supreme Court.The current generation can also sue in its own name for any infringement of their rights, even if they do not mention the rights of future generations, the Supreme Court will recognize their eligibility to sue.In the case, the Supreme Court said the rights of future generations should be protected, and many like-minded scholars preferred to cite the case.In fact, the theory of intergenerational equity makes no sense in this case.Although the court recognized the plaintiff's right to sue for the benefit of itself and its descendants, it did not recognize the individual claim of the descendant.In this case, the interests of the plaintiff and the interests of their descendants are consistent, and the interests of future generations alone are unnecessary.In terms of environmental protection, the case also did not have a material impact on the government's behavior.The Supreme Court sent the case back to the original court for retrial, recommending that the plaintiff list all logging permit holders as defendants, and after that, the plaintiff did not sue again.As a result, virtually none of the logging permits were cancelled.In general, the rainforest case is laudable, neither because of the statements made by the Philippine Supreme Court on intergenerational responsibility and intergenerational equity, nor because of its support for the capacity to sue for future generations.Rather, it argues that the constitutional right to balance and health can be a specific actionable right.The decision in this case turned a constitutional policy declaration into a legal environmental right, a specific right that can be sued.Victims can sue the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, which manages the development, utilization and conservation of national resources.The contribution of the case is to provide such a claim or justification for environmental litigation.However, the cause of action is also untenable. In this case, neither the plaintiff nor the court has pointed out a specific civil right in support of the plaintiff's claim, although the constitutional provisions on the right to a balanced and healthy ecological environment are fundamental,However, it is not specific to the extent of actionable, which is further illustrated by the subsequent cases of Horace and Manila Bay.
【学位授予单位】：中国海洋大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D934.1;DD912.6

【参考文献】