环境侵权因果关系类型化视角下的举证责任

发布时间：2018-03-01 02:17

本文关键词： 一般因果关系特定因果关系环境侵权因果关系举证责任　出处：《法学研究》2017年05期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：环境侵权因果关系的举证责任分配问题是环境法学和侵权法学理论界存在争论的疑难问题。虽然立法已经明文规定,然而司法实践中却常出现直接或间接违背立法的现象。对环境侵权因果关系这一概念本身的模糊认识是导致理论争论和实践矛盾的重要原因。在英美法对因果关系所作的一般因果关系与特定因果关系两分法的基础上,根据科学认知难度可进一步把一般因果关系分为三种类型:常识型、科学确定型和科学不确定型。只有科学不确定型因果关系的举证责任才应由被告承担。根据污染物致害的时空顺序,可把特定因果关系分为到达的因果关系和致害的因果关系,而致害的因果关系则可根据证明的需要区分为暴露的因果关系和真实的因果关系。到达的因果关系之举证责任,根据现行立法与司法解释应由被告承担。致害的因果关系中暴露的因果关系之举证责任应由原告承担,真实的因果关系之举证责任则由被告承担。
[Abstract]:The distribution of the burden of proof in environmental tort causality is a controversial problem in the field of environmental law and tort law. However, the phenomenon of direct or indirect violation of legislation often occurs in judicial practice. The vague understanding of the concept of causality in environmental tort is an important reason for the contradiction between theory and practice. On the basis of the dichotomy between the general causality and the specific causality, According to the difficulty of scientific cognition, the general causality can be further divided into three types: common sense, Only the burden of proof of scientific uncertainty causality should be borne by the defendant. According to the temporal and spatial order of pollutant damage, the specific causality can be divided into arrived causality and harmful causality. The causality of harm can be divided into exposed causality and real causality according to the need of proof. According to the current legislation and judicial interpretation, the defendant should bear the burden of proof of the causality exposed in the injurious causality, while the burden of proof of the true causality should be borne by the defendant.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】