Comparative Study on Environmental Crimes (Library of Criminal Law Science · Comparative Study on New Types of Crimes in the Contemporary Era.)

Author: Du Peng
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-06-01
Features: Environmental issues are an inevitable product of the historical development of human society. There seems to be an increasingly inverse relationship between environmental issues and socio-economic development. When economic development exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, the environmental backlash can surpass human imagination. This instinctive can also be rendered futile. In the mid-20th century, countries around the world, especially early developed nations, experienced this self-inflicted evil. Gradually, people became aware of the importance of environmental issues and began to seek feasible models for harmonious coexistence with the environment, ensuring that future generations could also live in harmony with it. The "Sustainable Development Principle" of the international community originated from such considerations. In modern rule-of-law societies, countries worldwide pay close attention to environmental issues and have increasingly used legal means to effectively protect the environment, with environmental criminal law becoming the last legal shield for environmental protection. Since the 1970s, particularly after the reform and opening-up, the Chinese government has gradually recognized the important role and strategic significance of environmental protection, continuously strengthening and improving environmental protection efforts. A large number of environmental protection laws, regulations, orders, and notices have been issued, gradually bringing environmental protection work into a legal, scientific, and systematic track while accelerating alignment with international environmental protection standards. Research on environmental crimes in China started relatively late. Before the revision of the Criminal Code in 1997, there were virtually no specialized studies on environmental crimes domestically, with only a few articles touching on the field. The main reason was the lack of systematic environmental criminal legislation, and environmental crime issues had not received sufficient attention. The revised Criminal Code of 1997 included a dedicated section in Chapter VI on "Crimes of Damaging Environmental Resources Protection," aimed at protecting environmental resources through criminal means and punishing and preventing related crimes. This book is based on an integrated analysis and comparative study of environmental criminal legislation and research findings both domestically and internationally. It is divided into two parts: The upper part, General Theory, focuses on a comparative study of the concepts and constitutive characteristics of environmental crimes; the lower part, Specific Analysis, examines specific environmental crimes through a comparative lens, covering major environmental crime types both domestically and internationally. It also emphasizes a comparative analysis of China's environmental criminal legislation and practical issues, particularly the amendments and judicial interpretations made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate regarding the crime of damaging environmental resources protection since the 1997 revision of the Criminal Code. The book strives to accurately interpret the legislative intent behind each crime, further deepening theoretical and practical understanding of environmental crimes. At the end of the book, selected excerpts of environmental criminal legislation from both domestically and internationally are provided for comparative reference. The conception and research of this book are still in the preliminary exploration stage, and errors and imperfections are inevitable. We sincerely invite criticism and corrections from academic peers. Excerpt Some cases are relatively clear, and they must be supported by sufficient evidence to confirm that the environmental pollution or damage was caused by the perpetrator. It is evident that the provisions of result crimes fall far short of meeting the actual needs of punishing environmental crimes. Therefore, many countries have begun to seek other methods to alleviate this conflict in application. Based on the traditional theory of result crimes, a form of environmental result crime has also emerged. For example, polluting water bodies results in an infringement on the environmental medium, which is sufficient to be punished as water pollution crimes. This indicates that some countries have transformed the harmful results of violating environmental law into criminal offenses, thereby simplifying the need to prove potential harm or loss to individual legal interests. This legislative provision that places public (super-individual) interests before individual interests is not uncommon, such as in the crimes of forging documents or perjury. However, this super-individual ecological value is almost entirely outside the scope of criminal interpretation. For instance, Article 324 of the German Criminal Code on water pollution states: "(1) Whoever, without authorization, pollutes water bodies or adversely alters their quality shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to five years or a fine." This expanded view of "environmental result crimes" reduces the threshold for the result in the constitutive elements of environmental crimes and gives rise to some issues. For example, in cases involving the self-purification capacity of water bodies, should the critical value for pollution be determined by whether harmful waste is discharged into the water (in whole or in part) or by the quality of still water? Or should the quantity be entirely disregarded, with the mere act of discharge being sufficient? Although the punishment for environmental result crimes resolves the issue of proving causation, it makes it difficult to delineate the boundaries of responsibility. When Austria revised its Criminal Code in 1989, it attempted to alleviate this contradiction in environmental criminal law. For example, Article 180(2) of the Austrian Criminal Code states: "Whoever, in violation of regulations or administrative measures, persistently, severely, and massively pollutes or damages water or soil, and meets any of the following conditions, shall also be punished as a crime: 1. Pollution or damage is permanent or long-lasting, and it is impossible or economically unfeasible to eliminate the pollution or damage. 2. Eliminating the pollution or damage requires a cost of more than 500,000 Austrian schillings." The solution proposed by this provision is to emphasize special harm to water or soil. However, the concern is that if this situation develops toward economic substitutability, the harm to the natural living foundation will far exceed pure economic harm. The general preventive goals pursued by legislators may entirely transform into an invitation to "damage the environment." It is evident that the legislative concepts of normative and resultative orientation, on the surface, focus only on the violation of certain regulations or the severity of the harm results of environmental crimes. Although no substantial, perceptible damage to life, health, or property has been caused, the potential foreseeable or unforeseeable losses are, in fact, already present and will ultimately lead to such damage. (II) In the case of danger crimes, the perpetrator does not need a specific criminal harm result to constitute an environmental crime; as long as a dangerous state exists, it meets the constitutive requirements of environmental crimes. The harmful elements required for the traditional types of harmful crimes are similar to those of result crimes mentioned above, but environmental harm crimes are preceded by actual harmful acts. Due to the harm