Protecting the Habitats of Endangered Species Through Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China: Lessons Learned from Peafowl Versus the Dam

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Juan Chu
{"title":"Protecting the Habitats of Endangered Species Through Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China: Lessons Learned from Peafowl Versus the Dam","authors":"Juan Chu","doi":"10.1093/jel/eqad031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Green Peafowl stands as a landmark lawsuit in China where environmental NGOs successfully halted a project threatening habitat of endangered species. By examining this case, this analysis evaluates the promise and limitations of China’s civil environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) in protecting habitat. Under civil EPIL’s broad and flexible framework, environmental NGOs can convince the courts that a government-approved project would destroy the ‘biological habitat’ for endangered species and hold project developers accountable. By arguing that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) institution is jointly liable by preparing a flawed report, environmental NGOs can also use civil EPIL as an alternative avenue to challenge the quality of an approved EIA report. However, the timing of judicial intervention, uncertainties of litigation outcomes, the scope of protection, and the court’s attitude towards EIA claims limit the effectiveness of civil EPIL. This analysis highlights the need to address regulatory failures revealed by Green Peafowl.","PeriodicalId":46437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqad031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Green Peafowl stands as a landmark lawsuit in China where environmental NGOs successfully halted a project threatening habitat of endangered species. By examining this case, this analysis evaluates the promise and limitations of China’s civil environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) in protecting habitat. Under civil EPIL’s broad and flexible framework, environmental NGOs can convince the courts that a government-approved project would destroy the ‘biological habitat’ for endangered species and hold project developers accountable. By arguing that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) institution is jointly liable by preparing a flawed report, environmental NGOs can also use civil EPIL as an alternative avenue to challenge the quality of an approved EIA report. However, the timing of judicial intervention, uncertainties of litigation outcomes, the scope of protection, and the court’s attitude towards EIA claims limit the effectiveness of civil EPIL. This analysis highlights the need to address regulatory failures revealed by Green Peafowl.
通过环境公益诉讼保护中国濒危物种栖息地:“孔雀诉坝”的经验教训
绿孔雀案是中国一个具有里程碑意义的诉讼案件,环保非政府组织成功阻止了一个威胁濒危物种栖息地的项目。本文通过对这一案例的分析,评估了中国民事环境公益诉讼在保护栖息地方面的前景和局限性。在民间EPIL广泛而灵活的框架下,环保非政府组织可以说服法院,政府批准的项目会破坏濒危物种的“生物栖息地”,并追究项目开发商的责任。通过认为环境影响评估机构对编制有缺陷的环境影响评估报告负有连带责任,环保非政府组织也可以利用民间环境影响评估作为另一种途径,对已批准的环境影响评估报告的质量提出质疑。然而,司法干预的时机、诉讼结果的不确定性、保护的范围以及法院对环评索赔的态度限制了民事环境保护法的有效性。这一分析凸显了解决绿孔雀暴露出的监管失灵问题的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
15.80%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Condensing essential information into just three issues a year, the Journal of Environmental Law has become an authoritative source of informed analysis for all those who have any dealings in this vital field of legal study. It exists primarily for academics and legal practitioners, but should also prove accessible for all other groups concerned with the environment, from scientists to planners. The journal offers major articles on a wide variety of topics, refereed and written to the highest standards, providing innovative and authoritative appraisals of current and emerging concepts, policies, and practice. It includes: -An analysis section, providing detailed analysis of current case law and legislative and policy developments -An annual review of significant UK, European Court of Justice, and international law cases -A substantial book reviews section
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信