环境噪声污染防治立法问题研究
|
摘要
据世界卫生组织2004年对世界的环境噪声污染情况进行的调查分析,认为全球环境噪声污染已经成为严重影响人们身心健康和生活质量的社会问题。《中华人民共和国环境噪声污染防治法》(1997年)的出台彰显了我国对这一问题的高度重视。然而,该法在立法上仍有许多有待完善之处,在实践中实施的效果并不理想。表现为:环境行政执法人员在执法时无法律依据可遵循;环境行政执法的主体较多;公民受到环境噪声侵权后,难以有效地维护自身的权益;对环境噪声污染建设项目不能充分行使公众参与权等。本文从立法的视角提出:通过完善环境噪声污染防治法的方式实现该法在生活中的调整作用,以达到维护声环境质量的目的。
The enforcement of the China's Environmental Noise Pollution Prevention Law shows that people have gained a deeper understanding on the problem of noise pollution to the environment, and also knows that environmental noise can cause people's physical and mental health. The government of our country begins to control it on the level of the law. However, many problems in the practice of our lives make the implementation of the Act unsatisfactory. I get the answer through access to a lot of relevant information, combining with China's environmental noise pollution control, that many problems existing in the legislation of it lead to unnsatisfactory implementation of the Act.
The understanding of the noise from the beginning to start, note the sound is a kind of wave in our daily life as a physical phenomenon, transmitting through the air and other media in the form of energy received by the human ear, and then through the brain decoding analysis will form the so-called hearing. Because there are individual differences in people, feelings of sound is different. Description of sound is linked with human perception. People often get experience about this, some people enjoy the music while others may feel annoyed. This is related with people in different mood states.
Through the analysis of ambient noise and environmental noise pollution on the Environmental Noise Pollution Prevention Law, we can recognize that the sounds which interfere with other people’normal work, study and life are called environmental noise. The noise forms the environmental noise pollution when the environmental noise exceeding the national environmental noise emission standards.
Why did the citizens have the right to request environmental noise pollution exclusion against it? By the analysis of the fundamental rights of citizens in the Constitution, we can find that rights derived from the citizen's right to survival and development. We can get the quiet right, deriving from the citizen's right to survival and development. That is to say the citizens enjoy an environment free from noise and the right to live. However, the enjoyment of quiet right is not unconditional. The citizens have to bear a certain degree of tolerance obligation incurred by the general context.
In recent years, enforcement agencies of environmental law lack effective solutions on environmental noise pollution, facing to the rise in environmental cases, and the increasing number of disputes caused by the noise. Environmental law enforcement departments often encounter difficulties in legislation, feeling helpless. Since the principle of the law lack of appropriate implementation details supporting by legislation, enforcement officers have to face embarrassing situations. First, environmental noise emission standards and environmental quality standards are imperfect. With the development of society, many new noise pollution occurred. The legislation can not keep up with the times due to the lag in legislation. Emerging noise issues make the appropriate legal norms introduced, avoiding of environmental law enforcement officers being in difficulties. Such as the current low-frequency noise pollution problems, the relative departments have attached great importance to it. Under the current circumstances, the relevant department failed to work out corresponding low-frequency noise emission standards. Second, the executive body of the environmental unit have many departments in the government. As the administrative departments of environmental protection is the main body according to the environmental law, with the other administrative departments of enforcement supplementing. And the local governments are responsible for local environmental quality system, making environmental law enforcement inefficient, resulting cases in reality encountered by environmental law enforcement departments passing the buck either or competing interests for their own department management. The main environmental law enforcement is not clear, and law enforcement structure is very confusing. The reason is the lack of legislation on the issue of coordination among various departments to make appropriate provisions. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt legislation to create a perfect environment rule for coordination between law enforcement agencies, to coordinate the relationship between law enforcement agencies in environmental law enforcement.
Finally, because law enforcement legislation on the environment only provides a warning, fines, the right of suggesting, environmental law enforcement forces is appeared weak. This directly led to the lack of means of enforcement in environmental laws. Environmental law enforcement is poor in law enforcement and dignity, the power of environment demands quick and timely response. The current system of enforcement is disproportionate. I propose, through, the administrative enforcement powers should be mandated to law enforcement agencies by way of legislation. This will strengthen the law enforcement to the environmental administrative, increasing environmental enforcement power to ensure effective enforcement of environmental laws to curb the worsening environmental problems.
The particularity of environmental noise pollution make the current legal provisions on dispute settlement powerless in this category on handling of environmental pollution disputes. First, the environmental administrative departments of environmental noise pollution handles of disputes by means of conciliation and adjudication. Both methods have some degree of effect, but the actual result is not satisfactory, difficult to play functions on environmental administrative law enforcement organs. I propose the establishment of environment can be a separate law enforcement agencies in the executive administrative settlement mechanism, and designing appropriate procedures to solve the problem of convergence. The use of independent administrative processing for environmental dispute settlement system is characteristic of professional designs, and also widely used in a foreign country.
Second, it also has some obvious deficiencies in a dispute solution. Disputes arising from environmental noise pollution is to be addressed by using a special form of violations in civil proceedings. That is to say, the victims need to show the evidence of loss of their rights before they can claim. Adopted the principle of burden of proof, the burden of proof to reduce the burden of the victims. However, due to the particularity of environmental noise pollution, that is the result of long-term harm, temporary endangerment. So the victims, suffering violations of environmental noise to produce evidence, may take several years before the emergence of hazardous results. By way of civil proceedings it is difficult to solve the problem of environmental noise pollution violations. In criminal proceedings, due to lack the appropriate subsidiary criminal law in environmental noise pollution control laws, real cases of environmental noise pollution is also not easy to be seen. At present, there are many provisions in China's criminal law. But only in a major environmental pollution accident does the crime likely apply to commit crimes in environmental noise pollution. However, the compositional elements of environmental crime are high, and therefore the case is rare in constituting a crime due to environmental noise pollution. To play a deterrent effect of criminal law, it is necessary to increase criminal liability in criminal subsidiary law to noise pollution Control Act, which makes the method harmony with the criminal law.
In the law of environmental noise prevention, the contents of public participation in the formulation is imperfect. Because the main meaning of public participation is to require public participation in public affairs in decision-making functions, the law of noise provisions is involved after public participation. Participation after the end of the participation in pollution control, public participation is clearly an essential requirement on inconsistent. Therefore, it can improve public participation in legislation, the content, increase participation and things involved in pre-requirements. This involved the participation of the whole process, not only in substantive law provision, but should also have appropriate procedural safeguards. Because public participation is both substantive and procedural rights of the human rights, there must be ways and means to exercise their rights. Therefore, the realization of the right of public participation depends on the appropriate procedural, safeguarding development incomplementary rules of procedure.
In summary, implementation of the results depends on the constant improvement in legislation environmental noise pollution control law. There are many shortcomings in the article, expressing my own views on the real problems existing in legislation, but remaining to be further improvement on legislation.
The enforcement of the China's Environmental Noise Pollution Prevention Law shows that people have gained a deeper understanding on the problem of noise pollution to the environment, and also knows that environmental noise can cause people's physical and mental health. The government of our country begins to control it on the level of the law. However, many problems in the practice of our lives make the implementation of the Act unsatisfactory. I get the answer through access to a lot of relevant information, combining with China's environmental noise pollution control, that many problems existing in the legislation of it lead to unnsatisfactory implementation of the Act.
The understanding of the noise from the beginning to start, note the sound is a kind of wave in our daily life as a physical phenomenon, transmitting through the air and other media in the form of energy received by the human ear, and then through the brain decoding analysis will form the so-called hearing. Because there are individual differences in people, feelings of sound is different. Description of sound is linked with human perception. People often get experience about this, some people enjoy the music while others may feel annoyed. This is related with people in different mood states.
Through the analysis of ambient noise and environmental noise pollution on the Environmental Noise Pollution Prevention Law, we can recognize that the sounds which interfere with other people’normal work, study and life are called environmental noise. The noise forms the environmental noise pollution when the environmental noise exceeding the national environmental noise emission standards.
Why did the citizens have the right to request environmental noise pollution exclusion against it? By the analysis of the fundamental rights of citizens in the Constitution, we can find that rights derived from the citizen's right to survival and development. We can get the quiet right, deriving from the citizen's right to survival and development. That is to say the citizens enjoy an environment free from noise and the right to live. However, the enjoyment of quiet right is not unconditional. The citizens have to bear a certain degree of tolerance obligation incurred by the general context.
In recent years, enforcement agencies of environmental law lack effective solutions on environmental noise pollution, facing to the rise in environmental cases, and the increasing number of disputes caused by the noise. Environmental law enforcement departments often encounter difficulties in legislation, feeling helpless. Since the principle of the law lack of appropriate implementation details supporting by legislation, enforcement officers have to face embarrassing situations. First, environmental noise emission standards and environmental quality standards are imperfect. With the development of society, many new noise pollution occurred. The legislation can not keep up with the times due to the lag in legislation. Emerging noise issues make the appropriate legal norms introduced, avoiding of environmental law enforcement officers being in difficulties. Such as the current low-frequency noise pollution problems, the relative departments have attached great importance to it. Under the current circumstances, the relevant department failed to work out corresponding low-frequency noise emission standards. Second, the executive body of the environmental unit have many departments in the government. As the administrative departments of environmental protection is the main body according to the environmental law, with the other administrative departments of enforcement supplementing. And the local governments are responsible for local environmental quality system, making environmental law enforcement inefficient, resulting cases in reality encountered by environmental law enforcement departments passing the buck either or competing interests for their own department management. The main environmental law enforcement is not clear, and law enforcement structure is very confusing. The reason is the lack of legislation on the issue of coordination among various departments to make appropriate provisions. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt legislation to create a perfect environment rule for coordination between law enforcement agencies, to coordinate the relationship between law enforcement agencies in environmental law enforcement.
Finally, because law enforcement legislation on the environment only provides a warning, fines, the right of suggesting, environmental law enforcement forces is appeared weak. This directly led to the lack of means of enforcement in environmental laws. Environmental law enforcement is poor in law enforcement and dignity, the power of environment demands quick and timely response. The current system of enforcement is disproportionate. I propose, through, the administrative enforcement powers should be mandated to law enforcement agencies by way of legislation. This will strengthen the law enforcement to the environmental administrative, increasing environmental enforcement power to ensure effective enforcement of environmental laws to curb the worsening environmental problems.
The particularity of environmental noise pollution make the current legal provisions on dispute settlement powerless in this category on handling of environmental pollution disputes. First, the environmental administrative departments of environmental noise pollution handles of disputes by means of conciliation and adjudication. Both methods have some degree of effect, but the actual result is not satisfactory, difficult to play functions on environmental administrative law enforcement organs. I propose the establishment of environment can be a separate law enforcement agencies in the executive administrative settlement mechanism, and designing appropriate procedures to solve the problem of convergence. The use of independent administrative processing for environmental dispute settlement system is characteristic of professional designs, and also widely used in a foreign country.
Second, it also has some obvious deficiencies in a dispute solution. Disputes arising from environmental noise pollution is to be addressed by using a special form of violations in civil proceedings. That is to say, the victims need to show the evidence of loss of their rights before they can claim. Adopted the principle of burden of proof, the burden of proof to reduce the burden of the victims. However, due to the particularity of environmental noise pollution, that is the result of long-term harm, temporary endangerment. So the victims, suffering violations of environmental noise to produce evidence, may take several years before the emergence of hazardous results. By way of civil proceedings it is difficult to solve the problem of environmental noise pollution violations. In criminal proceedings, due to lack the appropriate subsidiary criminal law in environmental noise pollution control laws, real cases of environmental noise pollution is also not easy to be seen. At present, there are many provisions in China's criminal law. But only in a major environmental pollution accident does the crime likely apply to commit crimes in environmental noise pollution. However, the compositional elements of environmental crime are high, and therefore the case is rare in constituting a crime due to environmental noise pollution. To play a deterrent effect of criminal law, it is necessary to increase criminal liability in criminal subsidiary law to noise pollution Control Act, which makes the method harmony with the criminal law.
In the law of environmental noise prevention, the contents of public participation in the formulation is imperfect. Because the main meaning of public participation is to require public participation in public affairs in decision-making functions, the law of noise provisions is involved after public participation. Participation after the end of the participation in pollution control, public participation is clearly an essential requirement on inconsistent. Therefore, it can improve public participation in legislation, the content, increase participation and things involved in pre-requirements. This involved the participation of the whole process, not only in substantive law provision, but should also have appropriate procedural safeguards. Because public participation is both substantive and procedural rights of the human rights, there must be ways and means to exercise their rights. Therefore, the realization of the right of public participation depends on the appropriate procedural, safeguarding development incomplementary rules of procedure.
In summary, implementation of the results depends on the constant improvement in legislation environmental noise pollution control law. There are many shortcomings in the article, expressing my own views on the real problems existing in legislation, but remaining to be further improvement on legislation.
引文
[1]刘国涛:《环境与资源保护法学》,中国法制出版社2004年第1版,第143页。
[2]吕忠梅:《论公民环境权》,《法学研究》1995年第6期,第64页。
[3]李咏:《论我国城市噪音污染防治的制度完善》,《法制与社会城乡建设》2009年第2期,第291页。
[4]黄霞、常纪文:《环境法学》,机械工业出版社2003年第1版,第185页。
[5]李迅、刘俊肖:《完善中国噪音污染防治立法的思考》,《资源与产业》2006年第6期,第95页。
[6]李迅、刘俊肖:《完善中国噪音污染防治立法的思考》,《资源与产业》2006年第6期,第94页。
[7]吕忠梅主编:《环境法》,法律出版社1997年第1版,第186页。
[8]吕忠梅:《论公民环境权》,《法学研究》1995年第6期,第64页。
[9]朱谦:《环境权问题——一种新的探讨路径》,《林业、森林与野生动植物资源保护法制建设——2004年中国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2004.7.22～27·重庆)论文集》,第1342-1343页。
[10]秘明杰:《论环境侵权及其不确定性分析》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006.8.10～12·北京)论文集》,第147页。
[11]易骆之、杨安源:《论环境侵权救济中的利益衡量》,《适应市场机制的法制建设研究——2002年中国环境资源法学研讨会(2002.10.22～25·西安)论文集》,第332页。
[12]易骆之、杨安源:《论环境侵权救济中的利益衡量》,《适应市场机制的法制建设研究——2002年中国环境资源法学研讨会(2002.10.22～25·西安)论文集》,第333页。
[13]周训芳:《环境权立法的困境与出路》,《时代法学》2004年第2期,第58页。
[14]赵军蒙:《安静权的法理思考》,《山东大学学报》2000年第5期,第52页。
[15]赵军蒙:《安静权的法理思考》,《山东大学学报》2000年第5期,第54页。
[16]曹文婷:《论环境法视野下的相邻关系》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006.8.10～12·北京)论文集》,第20页。
[17]闫明:《论噪声污染的法律防治与救济》,对外经济贸易大学2005年硕士学位论文,第9页。
[18]石光辉、宋丽平:《环境噪声执法中存在的问题及对策》,《污染防治技术》2006年第4期,第77页。
[19]王灿发、许可祝:《试论环境噪声污染防治立法存在的问题》,《中国环境报》2001年9月22日,第3版。
[20]王灿发:《论我国环境管理体制立法存在的问题及完善途径》,《中国政法大学学报》2003年第4期,第52-56页。
[21]吕忠梅:《建设法制政府》,《中国纪检监察报》2007年2月14日,第4版。
[22]石光辉、宋丽平:《环境噪声执法中存在的问题及对策》,《污染防治技术》2006年第4期,第77页。
[23]李和平:《我国环境行政执法的障碍及对策研究》,重庆大学2008年硕士学位论文,第14页。
[24]崔令之:《环保法基本原则之参与原则》,《湖南科技大学学报》2004年第4期,第31页。
[25]吕忠梅:《监管环境监管者:立法缺失及制度构建》,《法商研究》2009年第5期,第142页。
[26]李艳芳:《论公众参与环境保护的法律制度建设——以非政府组织(NGO)为中心》,《浙江社会科学》2004年第2期,第88-89页。
[27]吕忠梅:《论环境纠纷的司法救济》,《华中科技大学学报》2004年第4期,第44页。
[28]陈泉生:《论环境权的救济》,《法学评论》1999年第2期,第114页。
[29]陈绎勤:《论加强我国的噪声立法》,《噪声与振动控制》1986年第2期,第6页。
[30]付立忠:《环境刑事立法之我见》,《中国政法大学学报》1995年第5期,第24页。
[31]蔡守秋:《关于加强环境法治建设的构想》,《东方法学》2008年第3期,第8页。
[32]赵惊涛:《论环境保护中的公众参与问题》,《林业、森林与野生动植物资源保护法制建设——2004年中国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2004.7.22-27·重庆)论文集》,第1311页。
1.王树义主编:《可持续发展与中国环境法治——生态安全及其立法问题专题研究》,科学出版社2007年第1版。
2.王利明:《物权法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年第1版。
3.周训芳、李爱年主编:《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社2008年第1版。
4.韩德培主编:《环境保护法教程》,法律出版社2007年第5版。
5.蔡守秋主编:《环境资源法学》,人民法院出版社2003年第1版。
6.宋宗宇:《环境侵权民事责任研究》,重庆大学出版社2005年第1版。
7.张璐:《环境产业的法律调整——市场化渐进与环境资源法转型》,科学出版社2005年第1版。
8.王利明:《侵权行为法归责原则研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004年第2版。
9.江平主编:《中国物权法教程》,知识产权出版社2007年第1版。
10.李爱年:《环境法的伦理审视》,科学出版社2006年第1版。
11.齐树洁主编:《环境纠纷解决机制研究》,厦门大学出版社2005年第1版。
12.吕忠梅等:《环境资源法学》,科学出版社2004年第1版。
13.蔡永民:《环境与资源保护法学》,人民法院出版社2004年第1版。
14.曹明德:《生态法原理》,人民出版社2002年第1版。
15.陈泉生:《环境法原理》,法律出版社1997年第1版。
16.常纪文、王宗廷:《环境法学》,中国方正出版社2003年第1版。
17.蔡守秋:《环境法学教程》,科学出版社2003年第1版。
18.吕忠梅:《环境法学》,法律出版社2004年第1版。
19.周训芳:《环境法学》,中国林业出版社2000年第1版。
20.张梓太、吴卫星:《环境与资源法学》,科学出版社2002年第1版。
21.黄锡生、李希昆:《环境与资源保护法学》,重庆大学出版社2002年第1版。
22.张扬:《城市建筑规划与生活环境》,高等教育出版社2000年第1版。
23.刘金国、舒国滢:《法理学教科书》,中国政法大学出版社1999年第1版。
24.肖剑鸣:《比较环境法》,中国检察出版社2004年第1版。
25.吕忠梅:《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社2007年第1版。
26.赵秉志等:《环境犯罪比较研究》,法律出版社2004年第1版。
27.金瑞林:《环境法学》,北京大学出版社2002年第1版。
28.刘仁文:《环境资源保护与环境资源犯罪》,中信出版社2004年第1版。
29.陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社1997年第1版。
1.蔡守秋:《第三种调整机制——从环境资源保护和环境资源法角度进行研究》,《理论探索》2004年第1、2期。
2.赵惊涛:《科学发展观与生态法制建设》,《当代法学》2005年第5期。
3.周训芳:《论可持续发展与人类环境权》,《林业经济问题》2000年第1期。
4.郭显刚:《环境侵权民事责任中的举证责任分配问题分析》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006.8.10～12·北京)论文集》。
5.白平则:《公民环境权的几个理论问题》,《水资源、水环境与水法制建设问题研究——2003年中国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2003.7.24～29·青岛)论文集》。
6.陈泉生:《论可持续发展法律价值取向》,《探索·创新·发展·收获——2001年环境资源法学国际研讨会论文集》(上)。
7.崔玉成、陈赛:《环境法律制度利益平衡观》,《探索·创新·发展·收获——2001年环境资源法学国际研讨会论文集》(下)。
8.屈振辉:《现代环境法理念的伦理诠释》,《石家庄铁道学院学报》2008年第4期。
9.张岳武:《中国环境执法困境及其完善机制研究》,中国地质大学2007年硕士学位论文。
10.许思:《噪声的危害及控制》,《现代职业安全》2009年第91期。
11.谢守文:《当心慢性毒药——环境噪声》,《中华建筑报》2000年11月24日第1版。
12.王贺娟:《自然具有内在价值吗》,河南大学2008年硕士学位论文。
13.曲宗琴:《保护环境应注重生态伦理教育》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006年.8.10～12·北京)论文集》。
14.李丹:《环境立法的利益分析》,中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。
15.宋言奇:《由环境问题本质反思我国的环境教育》,《湖南师范大学教育科学学报》2005年第3期。
16.付立忠:《我国刑事立法的最新发展》,《中国环境报》2003年3月8日。
17.常纪文:《环境刑事责任构成要件理论研究的突破与发展综述》,《湖南公安高等专科学校学报》2001年第4期。
18.孙明娟、安喜厌:《论环境侵害救济的社会化》,《北京化工大学学报》2004年第2期。
19.刘湘:《论噪声污染损害赔偿——对一起噪声污染致人死亡案的评析》,《中国干部学院学报》2002年第3期。
20.赵传升:《浅谈环境噪声污染的法律和标准适用》,《陕西环境》2003年第2期。
21.祝有军:《向“噪声”宣战》,《质量与生活》2005年第10期。
22.漆利之:《一起环境噪声污染纠纷案的仲裁监测》,《贵州环保科技》2001年第3期。
23.应彦芬、孙毅:《浅议公安机关在环境噪声污染工作中的职责》,《公安学刊》2006年第6期。
[2]吕忠梅:《论公民环境权》,《法学研究》1995年第6期,第64页。
[3]李咏:《论我国城市噪音污染防治的制度完善》,《法制与社会城乡建设》2009年第2期,第291页。
[4]黄霞、常纪文:《环境法学》,机械工业出版社2003年第1版,第185页。
[5]李迅、刘俊肖:《完善中国噪音污染防治立法的思考》,《资源与产业》2006年第6期,第95页。
[6]李迅、刘俊肖:《完善中国噪音污染防治立法的思考》,《资源与产业》2006年第6期,第94页。
[7]吕忠梅主编:《环境法》,法律出版社1997年第1版,第186页。
[8]吕忠梅:《论公民环境权》,《法学研究》1995年第6期,第64页。
[9]朱谦:《环境权问题——一种新的探讨路径》,《林业、森林与野生动植物资源保护法制建设——2004年中国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2004.7.22～27·重庆)论文集》,第1342-1343页。
[10]秘明杰:《论环境侵权及其不确定性分析》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006.8.10～12·北京)论文集》,第147页。
[11]易骆之、杨安源:《论环境侵权救济中的利益衡量》,《适应市场机制的法制建设研究——2002年中国环境资源法学研讨会(2002.10.22～25·西安)论文集》,第332页。
[12]易骆之、杨安源:《论环境侵权救济中的利益衡量》,《适应市场机制的法制建设研究——2002年中国环境资源法学研讨会(2002.10.22～25·西安)论文集》,第333页。
[13]周训芳:《环境权立法的困境与出路》,《时代法学》2004年第2期,第58页。
[14]赵军蒙:《安静权的法理思考》,《山东大学学报》2000年第5期,第52页。
[15]赵军蒙:《安静权的法理思考》,《山东大学学报》2000年第5期,第54页。
[16]曹文婷:《论环境法视野下的相邻关系》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006.8.10～12·北京)论文集》,第20页。
[17]闫明:《论噪声污染的法律防治与救济》,对外经济贸易大学2005年硕士学位论文,第9页。
[18]石光辉、宋丽平:《环境噪声执法中存在的问题及对策》,《污染防治技术》2006年第4期,第77页。
[19]王灿发、许可祝:《试论环境噪声污染防治立法存在的问题》,《中国环境报》2001年9月22日,第3版。
[20]王灿发:《论我国环境管理体制立法存在的问题及完善途径》,《中国政法大学学报》2003年第4期,第52-56页。
[21]吕忠梅:《建设法制政府》,《中国纪检监察报》2007年2月14日,第4版。
[22]石光辉、宋丽平:《环境噪声执法中存在的问题及对策》,《污染防治技术》2006年第4期,第77页。
[23]李和平:《我国环境行政执法的障碍及对策研究》,重庆大学2008年硕士学位论文,第14页。
[24]崔令之:《环保法基本原则之参与原则》,《湖南科技大学学报》2004年第4期,第31页。
[25]吕忠梅:《监管环境监管者:立法缺失及制度构建》,《法商研究》2009年第5期,第142页。
[26]李艳芳:《论公众参与环境保护的法律制度建设——以非政府组织(NGO)为中心》,《浙江社会科学》2004年第2期,第88-89页。
[27]吕忠梅:《论环境纠纷的司法救济》,《华中科技大学学报》2004年第4期,第44页。
[28]陈泉生:《论环境权的救济》,《法学评论》1999年第2期,第114页。
[29]陈绎勤:《论加强我国的噪声立法》,《噪声与振动控制》1986年第2期,第6页。
[30]付立忠:《环境刑事立法之我见》,《中国政法大学学报》1995年第5期,第24页。
[31]蔡守秋:《关于加强环境法治建设的构想》,《东方法学》2008年第3期,第8页。
[32]赵惊涛:《论环境保护中的公众参与问题》,《林业、森林与野生动植物资源保护法制建设——2004年中国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2004.7.22-27·重庆)论文集》,第1311页。
1.王树义主编:《可持续发展与中国环境法治——生态安全及其立法问题专题研究》,科学出版社2007年第1版。
2.王利明:《物权法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年第1版。
3.周训芳、李爱年主编:《环境法学》,湖南人民出版社2008年第1版。
4.韩德培主编:《环境保护法教程》,法律出版社2007年第5版。
5.蔡守秋主编:《环境资源法学》,人民法院出版社2003年第1版。
6.宋宗宇:《环境侵权民事责任研究》,重庆大学出版社2005年第1版。
7.张璐:《环境产业的法律调整——市场化渐进与环境资源法转型》,科学出版社2005年第1版。
8.王利明:《侵权行为法归责原则研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004年第2版。
9.江平主编:《中国物权法教程》,知识产权出版社2007年第1版。
10.李爱年:《环境法的伦理审视》,科学出版社2006年第1版。
11.齐树洁主编:《环境纠纷解决机制研究》,厦门大学出版社2005年第1版。
12.吕忠梅等:《环境资源法学》,科学出版社2004年第1版。
13.蔡永民:《环境与资源保护法学》,人民法院出版社2004年第1版。
14.曹明德:《生态法原理》,人民出版社2002年第1版。
15.陈泉生:《环境法原理》,法律出版社1997年第1版。
16.常纪文、王宗廷:《环境法学》,中国方正出版社2003年第1版。
17.蔡守秋:《环境法学教程》,科学出版社2003年第1版。
18.吕忠梅:《环境法学》,法律出版社2004年第1版。
19.周训芳:《环境法学》,中国林业出版社2000年第1版。
20.张梓太、吴卫星:《环境与资源法学》,科学出版社2002年第1版。
21.黄锡生、李希昆:《环境与资源保护法学》,重庆大学出版社2002年第1版。
22.张扬:《城市建筑规划与生活环境》,高等教育出版社2000年第1版。
23.刘金国、舒国滢:《法理学教科书》,中国政法大学出版社1999年第1版。
24.肖剑鸣:《比较环境法》,中国检察出版社2004年第1版。
25.吕忠梅:《环境法新视野》,中国政法大学出版社2007年第1版。
26.赵秉志等:《环境犯罪比较研究》,法律出版社2004年第1版。
27.金瑞林:《环境法学》,北京大学出版社2002年第1版。
28.刘仁文:《环境资源保护与环境资源犯罪》,中信出版社2004年第1版。
29.陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社1997年第1版。
1.蔡守秋:《第三种调整机制——从环境资源保护和环境资源法角度进行研究》,《理论探索》2004年第1、2期。
2.赵惊涛:《科学发展观与生态法制建设》,《当代法学》2005年第5期。
3.周训芳:《论可持续发展与人类环境权》,《林业经济问题》2000年第1期。
4.郭显刚:《环境侵权民事责任中的举证责任分配问题分析》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006.8.10～12·北京)论文集》。
5.白平则:《公民环境权的几个理论问题》,《水资源、水环境与水法制建设问题研究——2003年中国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2003.7.24～29·青岛)论文集》。
6.陈泉生:《论可持续发展法律价值取向》,《探索·创新·发展·收获——2001年环境资源法学国际研讨会论文集》(上)。
7.崔玉成、陈赛:《环境法律制度利益平衡观》,《探索·创新·发展·收获——2001年环境资源法学国际研讨会论文集》(下)。
8.屈振辉:《现代环境法理念的伦理诠释》,《石家庄铁道学院学报》2008年第4期。
9.张岳武:《中国环境执法困境及其完善机制研究》,中国地质大学2007年硕士学位论文。
10.许思:《噪声的危害及控制》,《现代职业安全》2009年第91期。
11.谢守文:《当心慢性毒药——环境噪声》,《中华建筑报》2000年11月24日第1版。
12.王贺娟:《自然具有内在价值吗》,河南大学2008年硕士学位论文。
13.曲宗琴:《保护环境应注重生态伦理教育》,《资源节约型、环境友好型社会建设与环境资源法的热点问题研究——2006年全国环境资源法学研讨会(年会)(2006年.8.10～12·北京)论文集》。
14.李丹:《环境立法的利益分析》,中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。
15.宋言奇:《由环境问题本质反思我国的环境教育》,《湖南师范大学教育科学学报》2005年第3期。
16.付立忠:《我国刑事立法的最新发展》,《中国环境报》2003年3月8日。
17.常纪文:《环境刑事责任构成要件理论研究的突破与发展综述》,《湖南公安高等专科学校学报》2001年第4期。
18.孙明娟、安喜厌:《论环境侵害救济的社会化》,《北京化工大学学报》2004年第2期。
19.刘湘:《论噪声污染损害赔偿——对一起噪声污染致人死亡案的评析》,《中国干部学院学报》2002年第3期。
20.赵传升:《浅谈环境噪声污染的法律和标准适用》,《陕西环境》2003年第2期。
21.祝有军:《向“噪声”宣战》,《质量与生活》2005年第10期。
22.漆利之:《一起环境噪声污染纠纷案的仲裁监测》,《贵州环保科技》2001年第3期。
23.应彦芬、孙毅:《浅议公安机关在环境噪声污染工作中的职责》,《公安学刊》2006年第6期。