Green Benches. Yi Chen
Green Benches:
What can the People’s Republic of China Learn from Environment Courts of Other Countries?
Tun Lin, Canfa Wang, Yi Chen, Trisa Camacho, and Fen Lin
Asian Development Bank
© 2009 Asian Development Bank
All rights reserved. Published 2009.
Printed in the Philippines.
ISBN 978-971-561-860-Y
Publication Stock No. RPT090772
Cataloging-In-Publication Data
Tun Lin, et al.
Green benches: what can the People’s Republic of China learn from environment courts of other countries? Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2009.
1. Environment Courts. 2. People’s Repubic of China.I. Asian Development Bank.
The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.
ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use.
By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
ADB encourages printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgement of ADB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express written consent of ADB.
NOTE
In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.
Asian Development Bank
6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City
1550 Metro Manila, Philippines
Tel +63 2 632 4444
Fax +63 2 636 2444
For orders, please contact:
Department of External Relations
Fax +63 2 636 2648
Foreword
The rapid economic growth of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) over the last 30 years has generated many environmental problems and a concomitant rise in the number of environmental disputes. Until 1989, legal cases arising from these disputes were usually heard in the people’s courts of general jurisdiction. In that year, however, the development of the environment court system accelerated, leading to the creation of 11 such courts for pilot cases, a sign of the high priority the PRC has given to environmental protection over the past two decades.
This paper examines the effectiveness of environment courts in the PRC and elsewhere, so that the lessons learned can be applied in the PRC and in other developing countries. It also recommends ways to promote environmental justice in the PRC, given that the 11 environment courts are no longer enough to handle the rapidly increasing caseload throughout the country.
One of the goals of Strategy 2020, ADB’s long-term strategic framework for 2008–2020, is to foster environmentally sustainable growth in the PRC (and elsewhere in Asia and the Pacific) by finding ways to balance industrial growth and environmental protection. To this end, ADB has provided technical assistance to the PRC, such as in the building of regional supervision centers for the Ministry of Environmental Protection. In addition to the technical assistance, the ADB staff has also produced research reports. This paper is one of them, and it should prove useful to scholars and policy makers in the PRC, as well as in other developing countries facing similar challenges.
Report Summary
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 |