| 42 | 0 | 11 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
在全球气候变化和海洋污染叠加的背景下，单一属地司法模式已显得力不从心。各国法院通过行使域外司法管辖权，将国际环境义务转化为国内可执行的法律责任，逐步成为国家履行环境责任的重要载体。以国家环境责任的演进为切入点，可以观察到其从主权本位向义务导向的转型趋势，并为国内法院介入跨界海洋环境损害提供一定国际法和国内法依据。基于此，国内法院的司法介入虽具有正当性，但其运行仍面临国际法对域外司法管辖的规范依据尚不明确、国内法院作为单一国家实践的规范效力有限等约束。因此，有必要从国内法和国际合作两个层面加以回应：一方面在涉外法治框架下完善管辖连接规则和环境诉讼机制，强化国内法对国际环境义务的承接能力；另一方面，在既有海洋治理体系内推动规则协调和合作机制发展，提升跨界环境治理的整体效能。在此基础上，可将构建《联合国海洋法公约》框架下的第四个执行协定作为远期发展方向展开探讨，旨在弥补现行体系在责任落实和司法执行方面的缺位，进而实现国家环境义务的司法化、体系化和可执行化，为全球海洋环境司法治理提供有力支撑。
Abstract：Against the backdrop of global climate change and increasing marine pollution, the traditional single-territorial judicial model has become insufficient. By exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction, national courts are transforming international environmental obligations into domestically enforceable legal responsibilities, gradually becoming key vehicles for States to fulfill their environmental duties. Examining the evolution of national environmental responsibility reveals a trend shifting from sovereignty-based to obligationoriented approaches, providing a certain legal basis in both international and domestic law for domestic courts to address transboundary marine environmental harm. On this basis, while judicial intervention by domestic courts is legitimate, it still faces constraints: the normative basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction under international law remains unclear, and the normative effect of national court practice is limited as the action of a single state. Therefore, it is necessary to respond on two levels: domestically, by improving jurisdictional rules and environmental litigation mechanisms under the framework of rule of law in foreign-related matters, thereby strengthening the ability of domestic law to integrate international environmental obligations; internationally, by promoting regulatory coordination and the development of cooperative mechanisms within existing ocean governance frameworks to enhance the overall effectiveness of transboundary environmental management. Building on this, a possible long-term direction would be to explore the establishment of a fourth implementing agreement under the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), aiming to address current gaps in responsibility implementation and judicial enforcement. This would help achieve the judicialization, systematization, and enforceability of national environmental obligations, thereby providing strong support for global marine environmental judicial governance.
[1]O’Connell, M. E. Enforcement and the success of international environmental law[J]. Global Legal Studies Journal, 1995(3).
[2]Ellis, J. Extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction for environmental protection:Addressing fairness concerns[J]. Leiden Journal of International Law, 2012(25).
[3]O’Keefe, R. Domestic courts as agents of development of the international law of jurisdiction[J]. Leiden Journal of International Law, 2013(3).
[4]黄瑶，徐婉晴.全球海洋法治视角下“海洋命运共同体”理念的落实[J].太平洋学报，2023(10).
[5]王琪，崔野.将全球治理引入海洋领域——论全球海洋治理的基本问题与我国的应对策略[J].太平洋学报，2015(6).
[6]杨振姣，孙雪敏，王娟.生态政治化视域下全球海洋生态危机及其对策研究[J].东南学术，2015(6).
[7]Ausness, R. C. The effect of sovereign immunity on environmental protection suits against government officials[J]. Valparaiso University Law Review, 1971(1).
[8]王琪.气候正义视域下的气候变化损失与损害救济路径分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境，2016(12).
[9]张震，石逸群.人类命运共同体视域下全球环境治理的制度更新及完善探究[J].河南社会科学，2022(4).
[10]全永波.海洋环境跨界治理的国家责任[J].中国高校社会科学，2022(4).
[11]Facchinetti, A. State immunity from civil jurisdiction in transboundary environmental litigations[J]. The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, 2023(2).
[12]李爱年，韩广.人类社会的可持续发展与国际环境法[M].北京：法律出版社，2005.
[13]HLR. The sovereign self-preservation doctrine in environmental law[J]. Harvard Law Review, 2019(2).
[14]王铿.国际私法中侵权行为法律适用原则的新趋势[J].政治与法律，1984(5).
[15]向在胜.论跨国环境侵权救济中的司法管辖权[J].华东政法大学学报，2012(5).
[16]马得懿，陈璐.跨界海洋环境损害预防性救济的体系整合[J].中国地质大学学报（社会科学版），2023(6).
[17]Hundloe, T. EIA laws and policies:From NEPA to the world[A]. Environmental Impact Assessment.Palgrave Studies in Environmental Policy and Regulation[M]. Cham:Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.
[18]Hinteregger, M. Transboundary environmental damage and the law of the European Union[J]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting(American Society of International Law), 2011, 105.
[19]Hadjiyianni, I. The extraterritorial reach of EU environmental law and access to justice by third country actors[J]. European Papers, 2017(2).
[20]Richelle, J. The EU legal framework on transboundary air quality and pollution:Exploring the mismatch between transnationality in legislation and its use in practice[J]. Journal for European Environmental&Planning Law, 2025(1-2).
[21]孙南翔，刘燕莎.因应互联网3.0时期的域外管辖：历史演进与中国方案[J].江汉大学学报（社会科学版），2025(2).
[22]Campbell, E., E. Dominic, S. Stadnik, et al. Due diligence obligations of international organizations under international law[J]. International Law and Politics, 2018(50).
[23]孙思嘉，周珂.论预防型生态环境损害责任的实体构成与程序协调——以“绿孔雀案”为切入点[J].中国地质大学学报（社会科学版），2025(5).
[24]Brown, M. Climate litigation and accountability:Enforcing global commitments through domestic and international law[EB/OL]. https：//djilp. org/climate-litigation-and-accountability-enforcing-global-commitmen ts-through-domestic-and-international-law/，2025-04-25.
[25]马得懿.跨界海洋环境“无法弥补损害”的证立及其展开[J].太平洋学报，2023(4).
[26]Jain, T. Trans-boundary harm:An environmental principle in international context[J]. The Icfai University Journal of Environmental Law, 2008(7).
[27]Joseph, S.Jr. Understanding International Conflicts:An Introduction to Theory and History[M]. London:Pearson, 2008.
[28]Paul, JR. The transformation of international comity[J]. Law and Contemporary Problems, 2008(3).
[29]Chentman, A. The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2010.
[30]Nollkaemper, A. National Courts and the International Rule of Law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2011.
[31]Cryer, R., H. Friman, D. Robinson, et al. An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[32]Mills, A. Rethinking jurisdiction in international law[J]. British Yearbook of International Law, 2014, 84.
[33]Jiang, X., Z. Huang. Extraterritorial application of China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law:Towards effective marine environmental protection enforcement[J]. Marine Policy, 2024, 167.
[34]Criddle, E. J. Extraterritoriality’s empire:How self-determination limits extraterritorial lawmaking[J].American Journal of International Law, 2024, 118.
[35]Buser, A. National climate litigation and the international rule of law[J]. Leiden Journal of International Law, 2023, 36.
[36]Gregorio, F. Proving environmental harm in inter-State litigation:Challenges and evolving strategies[J].The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, 2023(3).
[37]Rioseco, S. The ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change and international law:A deep dive into external rules and materials[J]. International&Comparative Law Quarterly, 2025, 74.
[38]Scovazzi, T. The regime of enclosed or semi-enclosed seas with special regard for the mediterranean sea[J].Portuguese Yearbook of the Law of the Sea, 2024(1).
[39]秦天宝，吴羽涵.从传统相邻权到空间相邻权：国家公园毗邻区协同治理的法理基础与制度展开[J].中国地质大学学报（社会科学版），2026(1).
[40]Klerk, B. E. The ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change:revisiting the relationship between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Paris Agreement[J]. Review of European, Comparative&International Environmental Law, 2025, 34.
[41]Krisch, N. Jurisdiction unbound:(Extra)territorial regulation as global governance[J]. European Journal of International Law, 2022(2).
[42]Slaughter, A.-M., Burke-White W. The future of international law is domestic[J]. Harvard International Law Journal, 2006, 47.
[43]Nguyen, L. N. Expanding the environmental regulatory scope of UNCLOS through the rule of reference:potentials and limits[J]. Ocean Development&International Law, 2021, 52.
[44]Strong, S. I. Cross-border collective redress in the European Union:Constitutional rights in the face of the Brussels I Regulation[J]. Arizona State Law Journal, 2013, 45.
[45]Raymond, J. M. The exercise of concurrent international jurisdiction：“Move with circumspection appropriate”[J]. Boston College Law Review, 1967(4).
[46]杜涛.互惠原则与外国法院判决的承认与执行[J].环球法律评论，2007(1).
[47]徐伟功.我国承认与执行外国法院判决制度的构建路径——兼论我国认定互惠关系态度的转变[J].法商研究，2018(2).
[48]王克玉.“布鲁塞尔体系”和“海牙公约体系”下的正当程序比较研究——基于外国判决承认与执行的目的[J].比较法研究，2009(3).
[49]李惠茹. FDI与生态环境关系协调机制的构建：完善跨境环境规制[J].国际贸易，2009(2).
[50]Green Climate Fund. Climate Funds Update[EB/OL]. https：//climatefundsupdate. org/the-funds/greenclimate-fund/，2025-10-10.
(1)参见International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS), Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law,Advisory Opinion of 21 May 2024[C]. Case No. 31,para. 16。
(1)参见Case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland,Application No. 53600/20,Grand Chamber, 2024-04-09[C]. paras. 315,317,382-383,437。
(2)参见Case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland,Application No. 53600/20,Grand Chamber, 2024-04-09[C]. paras. 424-444。
(3)参见International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS), Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law,Advisory Opinion of 21 May 2024[C]. Case No. 31, paras. 161,164-165, 243。
(4)参见International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS), Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law,Advisory Opinion of 21 May 2024[C]. Case No. 31, paras. 239-243。
(5)参见International Court of Justice(ICJ), Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of23 July 2025[C]. paras. 134-136,280-281。
(6)参见International Court of Justice(ICJ), Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of23 July 2025[C]. para. 281。
(1)参见Sierra Club v. U. S. Dep’t of Energy, 867 F. 3d 189(D. C. Cir. 2017)。
(1)参见Court of Justice of the European Communities(CJEU), Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci and Others v. Italian Republic, Judgment of 19 November 1991,ECLI:EU:C:1991:428. paras. 35-37。
(1)这在普通法系国家的法院中表现得尤为明显。仅以英格兰和威尔士（英国三个独立司法管辖区之一）为例，可参见R v. Cox(Peter Stanley)[1968] 1 WLR 88(UK 1967);R v. Treacy案中的五位上议院高等法官中的四位，55ILR 110(UK 1970);Secretary of State for Trade v. Markus[1976] AC 35(UK 1975);Director of Public Prosecutions v. Stonehouse案中的五位上议院高等法官中的三位，73 ILR 252(UK 1977);R v. Smith(Wallace Duncan)(No. 4)[2004] QB 1418(UK 2004);R v. Sheppard[2010] 1 WLR 2779, 2784-8, paras. 20-33(UK2010)。
(1)参见e. g. the European Union démarches of 15 March 1995 and 5 March 1996, 35 ILM 397(1996), prior to the passage on 12 March 1996 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity(Libertad)Act 1996。
(1)参见《海洋环境保护法》第2条第3款。
(1)参见《海洋法公约》第235条。
基本信息:
DOI：10.16493/j.cnki.42-1627/c.20260520.001
中图分类号:D996.9;D993.5
引用信息:
[1]马得懿,周雁琳.国内法院介入跨界海洋环境损害：合法性、困境与路径[J].中国地质大学学报(社会科学版)().DOI:10.16493/j.cnki.42-1627/c.20260520.001.
基金信息:
海南省教育厅项目“美国实施‘航行自由行动’的国际法解析与应对”（Hnky2024ZD-23）;海南省教育厅项目“公安院校教学海洋争端与执法案例库建设研究”（YJJGZD2024-03）
2026-05-21
2026-05-21
2026-05-21