跨界环境影响评价制度研究
|
摘要
环境影响评价制度在当今已经不仅局限于一国的国内制度或者实践,环境法的特殊性要求各国政府采用特别的法律手段以满足保护环境的需要,而环境影响评价是其中一项重要法律手段。然而环境问题的全局性、流动性等特点导致单纯一国境内的环境影响评价无法解决国家之间就跨界环境污染问题产生的争端,以往从国内法视野下解决有关国与国跨界环境影响评价问题存在很多弊端,譬如各国对判断是否开展环评的标准不同、环评程序存在差异、环评结果是否有公信力等等,这些均影响环评的效力,跨界环境影响评价只有作为一项国际法律义务时,才具备实际意义。为了有效减少国与国之间就跨界污染产生的争端,跨界环境影响评价相应产生。跨界环境影响评价的特殊性导致在跨界环境影响评价制度的构建过程中,面临不同于国内环评的障碍,即各国利益的角逐也是跨界环境影响评价制度面临的重大挑战之一。在分析当前跨界环境影响评价制度的缺陷同时,寻求对不同背景下的缺陷的弥补措施,并试图寻求建立一个较为完善的跨界环境影响评价制度框架和实施机制成为当下国际社会亟需解决的问题。
国内法中的环境影响评价制度存在多样性的特点,这是发展统一环境影响评价程序的巨大挑战之一。国家间跨界环境影响评价通常以国际条约做参考,采取国内环境影响评价程序实施。由于各国对该程序的细节存在认识和实施上的冲突,给跨界环境影响评价的开展带来很大的困难。一个国家在使用本国环境影响评价制度开展跨界环境影响评价时,无论在环评内容还是环评执行者上,都有可能使受影响国家不认可,并产生纠纷。但是,由于相关国际文件不具备强制性,且受影响国家仅仅有提出意见的权利,起源国并没有义务采纳受影响国家的意见,也没有义务按照国际文件的要求开展环境影响评价,因此即使双方有相关国际文件做参考,也可能导致环境影响评价制定难以发挥其应有的作用。
除了国家间的跨界环境问题,还存在诸多如极地区域和公海海底、外太空、大气层等全球公域跨界环境问题。在这些区域中,环境影响评价制度通常是由周边各国通过参与有关环境保护的国际法律协议中来进行的,即使有条约要求各国在该特定区域内实施跨界环境评价,由于对实施的结果和过程并没有强制性规定,跨界环境影响评价的开展无法实现其原本的目标。由于现实中科学技术的局限性,除极地地区以外,在其他全球公域,实施跨界环境影响评价并不具备可行性,因而也不存在相关跨界环境影响评价的国际文件。而两极地区的跨界环境影响评价制度是国际环境法中极为重要部分,即使是极地地区的跨界环境影响评价,其规定也多集中于指导性的纲要,而各国在该区域开展各类项目也仅依据本国国内法实施环境影响评价,指导性的纲要几乎没有产生“指导”作用。各种指导纲要没有后续的框架来支持纲要的履行,缺少后续的规范模式,因而往往形同虚设。
当前跨界环境影响评价之所以发展进程缓慢的原因在于,首先,由于世界经济与科技水平发展的不均衡,发展中国家采取与发达国家同样的标准确定跨界环境影响评价的项目和程序不利于发展中国家的可持续发展,该问题在涉及关系到发展中国家国民基本生存、生活问题的民生项目时尤其显著。此外,发展中国家担心发达国家借口跨界环境影响评价而对本国设置“绿色障碍”,不利于本国经济发展。要解决类似的问题,鼓励全球范围内跨界环境影响评价制度的构建,需要从环境影响评价制度的基础上进行完善,引入共同但有区别的责任原则并且解决“超国家”跨界环境影响评价制度与国家主权的冲突。从环境保护领域来看,在国际领域发展出了两种存在冲突但相互影响的机制。一方面,跨界环境问题的威胁超出了国家管辖范围,表现为一种全球化的力量;另一方面,各主权国家、国际组织和非政府组织等为了解决跨界的环境问题进行合作,参与和制定有关跨界环境问题的国际性文件,由此构成了国际环境法体系,导致“超国家”的环境治理形成。在跨界环境影响评价制度的构建中,可以参考这种方式完善已有的区域性条约,建立全球性的跨界环境影响评价制度,该制度由全球性的跨界环境影响评价框架公约、跨界环境影响评价区域性立法以及跨界环境影响评价的国内立法构成。除此以外,设置完善的跨界环境影响评价标准与全球化的环境影响评价资料库,加强相关的国际监督机制和完善跨界环境影响评价的国家责任制度同样十分必要。
本文综合评价了现有的跨界环境影响评价的公约、条约及其他相关国际规则,建设性的提出完善跨界环境影响评价制度的构想,呼吁建立跨界环境影响评价信息交流平台,创新性的探讨了跨界环境影响评价的全球性框架公约构建的可能,并提出从全球性框架公约、区域性跨界环境影响评价公约和国内环境影响评价法规三个层面构建跨界环境影响评价制度的观点。另外,在跨界环境影响评价制度的监督方面,本文主张赋予全球性跨界环境影响评价公约调查委员会和区域性公约调查委员会一定的监督职能,以保障跨界环境影响评价制度的有效开展。
Today, as Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) system in any countries has more than just the domestic system or practices, the special requirements of environmental law makes all governments to adopt special legal methods to meet the needs of protection and preservation of the environment. TEIA is one of the important legal means. However, in the build process, the special nature of TEIA system needs to face the impediment which is different from the Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Completive interests of countries of TEIA system are also one of the most important challenges. With the analysis of current deficiencies of TEIA, try to seeking the remedies for different defects, and establishing a more comprehensive framework for TEIA system and implementation mechanisms as the international community needed to solve current problem.
Diversities of the TEIA in domestic law have been the great challenge in the unified TEIA processes. TEIA among countries is usually reference to international treaties and active through EIA procedures. The conflicts of acknowledge and practice procedures among countries has brought great difficulties to carry out cross-border of TEIA. When a country uses EIA system to carry out TEIA, regardless of whether content or executives, the affected countries may not disagree and generate disputes. Even if the two sides have made reference to the relevant international documents, however, because the files do not have mandatory, and the affected countries only have the right to comment and the State of origin is not obliged to adopt the views of affected countries, there is no obligation to carry out in accordance with the requirements of TEIA. Which led to TEIA is difficult to play its due role.
Except cross-border environmental issues between countries, there are also many issues such as Polar Regions and the high seas. Within the regions TEIA system is usually adopted by the neighboring countries involved in the protection of international legal agreements to carry out. Even if the treaties require States to be implemented in that particular area of TEIA, outcome and process of implementation is not mandatory. In view above, TEIA has not achieved its original objectives. Within the high seas outside the Polar Regions, there is no TEIA related to international documents. States only have the obligations of the DEIA within the jurisdiction of the territorial sea, and do not assume responsibility for TEIA. Even TEIA of the Polar Regions, its provisions also more concentrated in guiding framework. States carry out various projects in the region according to domestic law is only the implementation of environmental impact assessment—an outline of guiding had little "guidance "role. Guidelines don’t have follow framework to support the outline performing. The lack of the follow specification model is often useless.
The currently existing transboundary environmental impact assessment attributes its slow development to a number of aspects. First, due to the different levels of economical and technological development, in the sense that apply the same standard of transboundary environmental impact assessment to both the developing states and the developed states might go against the goal of sustainable development in developing states. This is particularly so when applying the assessment in question to the most essential projects that directly relate to the basic maintenance of citizens. Second, the transboundary environmental impact assessment might be used by developing states to set an undesirable environmental bar upon the developing states, which will severely affect local economical development.
To solve the above issues, it is suggested that the whole system needs a refinement, and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities should be introduced in order to fill this gap in transboundary environmental impact assessment in a broader global context, and strike a better balance between state sovereignty and transboundary environmental regulations. From the perspective of environmental protection, two conflicting but intra-influenced mechanisms have been development in the international sphere. On the one hand, the threats of transboundary environmental problems go beyond the jurisdiction of an individual state, prompting a global threat; on the other, sovereign states, international organizations and non-governmental organizations have cooperated to set out international instruments concerning transboundary environmental issues. As such, a“super-national”environmental regulation system has been formulated by these instruments of international environmental applications at the international level.
During the construction process of the transboundary environmental impact assessment system, this thesis suggests a global system to be formulated by incorporating the currently existing regional treaties and other instruments. This global system includes an international conventional framework, regional regulations of transboundary environmental impact assessment and domestic legislation of environmental impact assessment. In addition to this proposed global system, it is necessary to establish an internationally accepted standard of transboundary environmental impact assessment, a comprehensive database of global environmental impact materials, as well as to strength the external and internal supervisory mechanisms.
This thesis examines international instruments concerning transboundary environmental impact assessment in a broader context. It further constructively suggests establishing a transboundary environmental impact assessment system and a more fluent channel of exchanging environmental impact assessment information. Most importantly, the thesis brings forward the possibility of setting out an international conventional framework of transboundary environmental impact assessment. In so doing, the thesis discusses the system from three aspects, namely the proposed international conventional framework, regional transboundary environmental impact assessment treaties and domestic environmental impact assessment regulations.With regard to the supervisory mechanism of the environmental impact assessment system, this thesis not only concludes that Convention has played an essential role as an external supervisory body, it also suggests that the board of inquiry committee in both the international and national spheres should be empowered to act as external supervisory bodies, as both bodies might contribute to the effective operation of the transboundary environmental impact assessment system.
国内法中的环境影响评价制度存在多样性的特点,这是发展统一环境影响评价程序的巨大挑战之一。国家间跨界环境影响评价通常以国际条约做参考,采取国内环境影响评价程序实施。由于各国对该程序的细节存在认识和实施上的冲突,给跨界环境影响评价的开展带来很大的困难。一个国家在使用本国环境影响评价制度开展跨界环境影响评价时,无论在环评内容还是环评执行者上,都有可能使受影响国家不认可,并产生纠纷。但是,由于相关国际文件不具备强制性,且受影响国家仅仅有提出意见的权利,起源国并没有义务采纳受影响国家的意见,也没有义务按照国际文件的要求开展环境影响评价,因此即使双方有相关国际文件做参考,也可能导致环境影响评价制定难以发挥其应有的作用。
除了国家间的跨界环境问题,还存在诸多如极地区域和公海海底、外太空、大气层等全球公域跨界环境问题。在这些区域中,环境影响评价制度通常是由周边各国通过参与有关环境保护的国际法律协议中来进行的,即使有条约要求各国在该特定区域内实施跨界环境评价,由于对实施的结果和过程并没有强制性规定,跨界环境影响评价的开展无法实现其原本的目标。由于现实中科学技术的局限性,除极地地区以外,在其他全球公域,实施跨界环境影响评价并不具备可行性,因而也不存在相关跨界环境影响评价的国际文件。而两极地区的跨界环境影响评价制度是国际环境法中极为重要部分,即使是极地地区的跨界环境影响评价,其规定也多集中于指导性的纲要,而各国在该区域开展各类项目也仅依据本国国内法实施环境影响评价,指导性的纲要几乎没有产生“指导”作用。各种指导纲要没有后续的框架来支持纲要的履行,缺少后续的规范模式,因而往往形同虚设。
当前跨界环境影响评价之所以发展进程缓慢的原因在于,首先,由于世界经济与科技水平发展的不均衡,发展中国家采取与发达国家同样的标准确定跨界环境影响评价的项目和程序不利于发展中国家的可持续发展,该问题在涉及关系到发展中国家国民基本生存、生活问题的民生项目时尤其显著。此外,发展中国家担心发达国家借口跨界环境影响评价而对本国设置“绿色障碍”,不利于本国经济发展。要解决类似的问题,鼓励全球范围内跨界环境影响评价制度的构建,需要从环境影响评价制度的基础上进行完善,引入共同但有区别的责任原则并且解决“超国家”跨界环境影响评价制度与国家主权的冲突。从环境保护领域来看,在国际领域发展出了两种存在冲突但相互影响的机制。一方面,跨界环境问题的威胁超出了国家管辖范围,表现为一种全球化的力量;另一方面,各主权国家、国际组织和非政府组织等为了解决跨界的环境问题进行合作,参与和制定有关跨界环境问题的国际性文件,由此构成了国际环境法体系,导致“超国家”的环境治理形成。在跨界环境影响评价制度的构建中,可以参考这种方式完善已有的区域性条约,建立全球性的跨界环境影响评价制度,该制度由全球性的跨界环境影响评价框架公约、跨界环境影响评价区域性立法以及跨界环境影响评价的国内立法构成。除此以外,设置完善的跨界环境影响评价标准与全球化的环境影响评价资料库,加强相关的国际监督机制和完善跨界环境影响评价的国家责任制度同样十分必要。
本文综合评价了现有的跨界环境影响评价的公约、条约及其他相关国际规则,建设性的提出完善跨界环境影响评价制度的构想,呼吁建立跨界环境影响评价信息交流平台,创新性的探讨了跨界环境影响评价的全球性框架公约构建的可能,并提出从全球性框架公约、区域性跨界环境影响评价公约和国内环境影响评价法规三个层面构建跨界环境影响评价制度的观点。另外,在跨界环境影响评价制度的监督方面,本文主张赋予全球性跨界环境影响评价公约调查委员会和区域性公约调查委员会一定的监督职能,以保障跨界环境影响评价制度的有效开展。
Today, as Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) system in any countries has more than just the domestic system or practices, the special requirements of environmental law makes all governments to adopt special legal methods to meet the needs of protection and preservation of the environment. TEIA is one of the important legal means. However, in the build process, the special nature of TEIA system needs to face the impediment which is different from the Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Completive interests of countries of TEIA system are also one of the most important challenges. With the analysis of current deficiencies of TEIA, try to seeking the remedies for different defects, and establishing a more comprehensive framework for TEIA system and implementation mechanisms as the international community needed to solve current problem.
Diversities of the TEIA in domestic law have been the great challenge in the unified TEIA processes. TEIA among countries is usually reference to international treaties and active through EIA procedures. The conflicts of acknowledge and practice procedures among countries has brought great difficulties to carry out cross-border of TEIA. When a country uses EIA system to carry out TEIA, regardless of whether content or executives, the affected countries may not disagree and generate disputes. Even if the two sides have made reference to the relevant international documents, however, because the files do not have mandatory, and the affected countries only have the right to comment and the State of origin is not obliged to adopt the views of affected countries, there is no obligation to carry out in accordance with the requirements of TEIA. Which led to TEIA is difficult to play its due role.
Except cross-border environmental issues between countries, there are also many issues such as Polar Regions and the high seas. Within the regions TEIA system is usually adopted by the neighboring countries involved in the protection of international legal agreements to carry out. Even if the treaties require States to be implemented in that particular area of TEIA, outcome and process of implementation is not mandatory. In view above, TEIA has not achieved its original objectives. Within the high seas outside the Polar Regions, there is no TEIA related to international documents. States only have the obligations of the DEIA within the jurisdiction of the territorial sea, and do not assume responsibility for TEIA. Even TEIA of the Polar Regions, its provisions also more concentrated in guiding framework. States carry out various projects in the region according to domestic law is only the implementation of environmental impact assessment—an outline of guiding had little "guidance "role. Guidelines don’t have follow framework to support the outline performing. The lack of the follow specification model is often useless.
The currently existing transboundary environmental impact assessment attributes its slow development to a number of aspects. First, due to the different levels of economical and technological development, in the sense that apply the same standard of transboundary environmental impact assessment to both the developing states and the developed states might go against the goal of sustainable development in developing states. This is particularly so when applying the assessment in question to the most essential projects that directly relate to the basic maintenance of citizens. Second, the transboundary environmental impact assessment might be used by developing states to set an undesirable environmental bar upon the developing states, which will severely affect local economical development.
To solve the above issues, it is suggested that the whole system needs a refinement, and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities should be introduced in order to fill this gap in transboundary environmental impact assessment in a broader global context, and strike a better balance between state sovereignty and transboundary environmental regulations. From the perspective of environmental protection, two conflicting but intra-influenced mechanisms have been development in the international sphere. On the one hand, the threats of transboundary environmental problems go beyond the jurisdiction of an individual state, prompting a global threat; on the other, sovereign states, international organizations and non-governmental organizations have cooperated to set out international instruments concerning transboundary environmental issues. As such, a“super-national”environmental regulation system has been formulated by these instruments of international environmental applications at the international level.
During the construction process of the transboundary environmental impact assessment system, this thesis suggests a global system to be formulated by incorporating the currently existing regional treaties and other instruments. This global system includes an international conventional framework, regional regulations of transboundary environmental impact assessment and domestic legislation of environmental impact assessment. In addition to this proposed global system, it is necessary to establish an internationally accepted standard of transboundary environmental impact assessment, a comprehensive database of global environmental impact materials, as well as to strength the external and internal supervisory mechanisms.
This thesis examines international instruments concerning transboundary environmental impact assessment in a broader context. It further constructively suggests establishing a transboundary environmental impact assessment system and a more fluent channel of exchanging environmental impact assessment information. Most importantly, the thesis brings forward the possibility of setting out an international conventional framework of transboundary environmental impact assessment. In so doing, the thesis discusses the system from three aspects, namely the proposed international conventional framework, regional transboundary environmental impact assessment treaties and domestic environmental impact assessment regulations.With regard to the supervisory mechanism of the environmental impact assessment system, this thesis not only concludes that Convention has played an essential role as an external supervisory body, it also suggests that the board of inquiry committee in both the international and national spheres should be empowered to act as external supervisory bodies, as both bodies might contribute to the effective operation of the transboundary environmental impact assessment system.
引文
1 Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, Report of the Commission on Global Governace, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, pp251-253.
1端木正:《国际法》,北京大学出版社2000年第3版,第265-266页。
1 Timo Koivurova. The Case of Vuotos: Interplay Between International, Community and National Environmental Law. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law: Volume 13, Issue 1,pages 47–60, April 2004.
1刘惠荣主编:《国际环境法》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第217-225页。
1 [法]亚历山大·基斯:《国际环境法》,张若思译,法律出版社2000年版,第91页。
2同上。
1陈泉生:《论环境法的基本原则》,《中国法学》,1998年第4期。
2徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第146页。
3王曦:《国际环境法》,法律出版社1998年版,第15页。
1刘惠荣、董跃:《国际环境法》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第31页。
2徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第148页。
1徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第148页。
2徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第203页。
3胡二邦:《环境风险评价实用技术和方法》,中国环境科学出版社年2000年版,第8页。
1徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第161页。
1徐祥民:《极限与分配――再论环境法的本位》,《中国人口·资源与环境》,2003年第4期。
2世界环境与发展委员会:《我们共同的未来》,国家环境保护总局外事办公室译,世界知识出版社1993年版,第19期。
1潘抱存:《国际环境法基本原则的宏观思考》,《法学杂志》,2006年第6期。
2《中国21世纪议程——中国21世纪人口、环境与发展白皮书》,中国环境科学出版社1994年版,第1页。
1许建编:《国际环境法学》,中国环境科学出版社2004年第1版,第104页。
1端木正编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社2000年第3版,第56页。
2李耀芳:《国际环境法缘起》,中山大学出版社2002年第1版,第31页。
1 Stephen McCaffrey, The Law of International Watercourses, Non-Navigational Uses, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 403.
1 [法]亚历山大·基斯:《国际环境法》,张若思译,法律出版社2000年版,第107页。
1 [法]亚历山大·基斯:《国际环境法》,张若思译,法律出版社2000年版,第117页。
1 Ved P. Nanda, George Pring, International Environmental Law for the 21st Century, Transnational Publishers, Inc. ,2003(17).
1张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第348页。
1张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第149页。
1 Jutta Brunnee,“Between Sovereignty, Efficiency, and Legitimacy: Lawmaking under Multilateral Environmental Agreements”, in Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Obijiofor Aginam, Humanizing Our Global Order: Essays in Honour of Ivan Head, University of Toronto Press, 2033, p.64.
2张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第278页。
1 R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Instalment 7, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 1984, p. 62.
2 Malcolm D. Evans, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.166.
3张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第299页。
1 Dinah Shelton (ed. ), Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.237-239.
[1]《中国大百科全书(环境科学卷)》,中国大百科出版社1983年版。
[2]王亿同主编译:《英汉辞海》,国防工业出版社1987年版。
[3] [美]弗卡普拉:《绿色政治:全球的希望》,石音译,东方出版社1988年版。
[4]金瑞林主编:《环境法学》,北京大学1990年版。
[5]叶明照:《国际环境法概论》,厦门大学出版社1992年版。
[6]中国环境报社编译:《迈向21世纪-联合国环境与发展大会文献汇编》,中国环境科学出版社1992年版。
[7]王利明:《侵权行为法归责原则研究》,中国政法大学出版社1992年版。
[8] [英]詹宁斯瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版。
[9]蔡守秋:《环境法教程》,法律出版社1995年版。
[10]经济合作与发展组织:《贸易的环境影响》,丁德宇等译,中国环境科学出版社1996年版。
[11]陈致中编著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版。
[12]汪劲:《环境法律德理念与价值追求》,法律出版社2000年版。
[13] [美]爱蒂丝·布朗·魏伊丝:《公平地对待未来人类:国际法、共同遗产与世代间衡平》,汪劲等译,法律出版社2000年版。
[14]高家伟:《欧洲环境法》,工商出版社2000年版。
[15] [日]原田尚彦:《环境法》,于敏译,法律出版社2001年版。
[16]王曦主编:《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》第1卷,法律出版社2002年版。
[17]联合国环境规划署:《环境法教程》,王曦等译,法律出版社2002年版。
[18]贺其治:《国家责任法及案例浅析》,法律出版社2003年版。
[19]傅济熙:《核损害的民事责任与赔偿》,原子能出版社2003年版。
[20]王曦编著:《国际环境法》,法律出版社2004年第2版。
[21]徐爱国:《英美侵权行为法学》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
[22]王曦主编:《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》第2卷,法律出版社2005年版。
[23]汪劲:《环境法学》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
[24]邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》,商务印书馆2006年版。
[25] [英]妮古拉·莱西:《哈特的一生:噩梦与美梦》,谌洪果译,法律出版社2006年版。
[26]徐国平:《船舶油污损害赔偿法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
[1]毛庆国:《我国各法域间的跨界环境影响评价问题》,中国环境科学学会成立20周年大会,1999年。
[2]毛庆国:《粤港跨界环境影响评价问题研究》,《加入WTO和中国科技与可持续发展——挑战与机遇、责任和对策(上册)》,中国科协2002年学术年会。
[3]杨作精:《略论环境管理模式的重大变革——ISO14000系列标准剖析》,《上海环境科学》,1996年第15第10期。
[4]张永泽、陈晓霞:《欧洲与北美的环境立法及实践趋势》,《北方环境》,1999年2期。
[5]汪劲:《环境问题的全球化及其法律对策》,《法制与社会发展》2000年第5期。
[6]林灿铃:《论国际法不加禁止之行为所产生的损害性后果的国家责任》,《比较法研究》2000年第3期。
[7]张若思:《贸易与环境》,《环球法律评论》2002年第4期。
[8]张若思:《世界贸易组织内的“环境”争端》,《环球法律评论》2002年第4期。
[9]李雅云:《核损害责任法律制度研究》,《环境法律评论》2002年秋季号。
[10]张秀梅:《组织建立ISO14001环境管理体系与环境影响评价关系的探讨》,《中国ISO14000认证》,2002年第3期。
[11]周训芳:《环境概念与环境法对环境概念的选择》,《安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年第5期。
[12]那力、杨炀:《国际环境损害责任私法化》,《当代法学》2004年第4期。
[13]刘湘溶、刘雪丰:《论国家的国际环境责任》,《湖南社会科学》2004年第1期。
[14]王超锋:《跨界环境影响评价制度的实施问题研究》,《淮海工学院学报(人文社会科学版)》,2004年第4期。
[15]王曦:《论国际法不加禁止之行为引起有害后果之国际法责任》,《社会科学》2006年第4期。
[16]那力:《国际环境损害责任的两个重大变化》,《法商研究》2006年第6期。
[17]青立花:《论跨界环境影响评价制度的实施问题及建议》,《企业家天地下半月刊(理论版)》,2007年第2期。
[18]曾珩、刘丽:《论我国环境影响评价制度(EIA)中公众参与机制的完善》,《科技创新导报》,2007年第31期。
[19]刁翔正:《从国际战略环境影响评价的发展反思我国的环境影响评价制度》,《商场现代化》,2007年第28期。
[20]田武:《ISO管理体系标准的发展趋势和应对建议》,《中国认证认可》,2010年第1期。
[21]陈戈:《ISO发挥国际标准应对气候变化的作用》,《中国认证认可》,2010年第2期。
[22]王欢欢:《欧盟环境评价制度探析——以法律渊源为视角》,《北京林业大学学报(社会科学版)》,2010年04期。
[23]叶波:《试论国际法上的承诺》,《国际展望》2010年04期。
[24]李伟芳:《跨界环境损害法律责任论》,2007年华东政法大学博士论文。
[25]杨振发:《建立澜沧江—湄公河流域跨界环境影响评价制度若干问题的研究》,2005年昆明理工大学硕士论文。
[26]孙刚:《跨界河流污染防治法律问题研究》,2007年郑州大学硕士论文。
[27]王冬梅:《突发性跨界水污染全过程风险评价研究》,2009年哈尔滨工业大学硕士论文。
[28]邵磊:《跨界突发性大气环境风险源分级评价研究》,2009年大连理工大学硕士论文。
[29]朱义亭:《论跨界环境损害的民事责任》,2009年中国海洋大学硕士论文。
[30]林长喜:《跨界重大水污染事故风险源识别技术体系的研究与应用》,2009年哈尔滨工业大学硕士论文。
[31]刘金霞:《危险活动造成跨界损害的责任初探》,2009年中国政法大学硕士论文。
[1] Garrett Hardin:“The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, VOL.162.
[2] Jutta Brunnee:Of Sence and Sensibility:Reflection on International Liability Regimes as Tools For Environmental Peotection,Interational and Comparative Law Quartely,Volume 53 Part 2.
[3] Harold and Margaret Sprout:Toward a Politics of the Planet Earth,NewYork, Van Nostrand Reinhold 1971.
[4] Richard A.Falk:A Study of Future worlds,The Free Press 1975.
[5] Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,Merriam-Webster 1987.
[6] M.C.W.Pinto:Reflection On International Liability For Injurious Consequences Arising Out Of Acts Not Prohibited By International Law,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 1985.
[7] Sanford E.Gaines:International Principles for Transnational Environmental Liability:Can Developments in Municipal Law Help Break the Impasse?Harvard International Law Journal,winter 1989,Vol.30.
[8] O.Schachter:International Law in Theory and Practice,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991.
[9] Francesco Francioni and Tullio Scovazzi:International Responsibility for Environmental Harm,Graham&Trontman Limited 1991.
[10] H.L.A Hart:Concept Of Law,second edition,Oxford University Press 1994.
[11] G M BATES:Environmental Law in Australia,Butterworths 1995.
[12] D.J.Harris:Case and Materials on International Law,Sweet&Maxwell 1998.
[13] Marie-Louis Larsson:The Law of Environmental Damage:Liability and Reparation,The Hague Kluwer Law International 1999.
[14] Black’s Law Dictionary,seventh edition,West Group 1999.
[15] Alexandre Kiss and Dinach Shelton:International Environmental law,Transnational Publishers 2000.
[16] Edward H.P.Brans:Liability for Damage to Public Nature Resources, Kluwer Law International 2001.
[17] Bergkamp,Lucas:Laibility and environment:private and public law aspect of civil liability for environmental harm in an international context,Kluwer Law International 2001.
[18] Michael Bowman and Alan Boyle:Environmental Damage in International and Comparative Law,Oxford University Press 2002.
[19] Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English,Oxford University Press 2002.
[20] P.W.BIRVIE and A.E.BOYLE:International Law and The environment, Oxford University Press 2002.
[21] Paula M,Pevato:International Environmental Law,Dartmouth Publishing Company 2002.
[22] Reno Provost:State Responsibility in International Law,Darmouth Publishing Company 2002.
[23] Philippe sands:Principles of international environmental law,Cambridge University Press 2003.
[24] XUE HANQIN: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge University Press 2003.
[25] Carter, Trimble, Bradley: International Law, Aspen Publishers 2003.
[26] Richard A. Epstein: Cases and Materials on Torts, Citic Publishing House 2003.
[27] Ian Brownlie: Principles of Public International Law, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press 2003.
[28] A.E.Boyle: Globalising Environmental Liability: The Interplay of National and International Law,Journal of Environmental Law 2005.
[29] David Hunter, James Salzman, Durwood Zaeleke: International Environmental Law And Policy, Third Edition, Foundation Press 2007.
[30] Kees Bastmeijer, Timo Koivurova: Theory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers / Brill Academic 2007.
[31] B. Carroll and T. Turpin: Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook, 2nd edition, Thomas Telford Publishing 2009.
[32] Kevin Hanna: Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation, Oxford University Press 2009.
[33] Bram F. Noble: Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice, Oxford University Press 2009.
[34] DJ Harris: Cases and Materials on International Law, Six Edition Sweet& Maxwell 2009.
[35] Tarek A. Kassim: Environmental Impact Assessment of Recycled Wastes on Surface and Ground Waters: Risk Analysis, Springer 2010.
[36] Neil Craik: The International Law of Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Substance and Integration, Cambridge University Press 2010
[37] Michael Schmidt, John Glasson, Lars Emmelin, Hendrike Helbron: Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment (Environmental Protection in the European Union), Springer 2010.
[38] Simon Marsden and Timo Koivurova, Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in the European Union: The Espoo Convention and Its Kiev Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan Pubns Ltd 2011.
[39] Charles H. Eccleston: Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Best Professional Practices, CRC Press 2011.
[1] Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities.
[2] Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities with Commentaries.
[3] First Report on Diplomatic Protection,A/CN.4/506.
[4] Survey of International Law in Relation to the Work of Codification of International Law Commission,A/CN.4/1/Rev.1.
[5] Report of the International Law Commission,A/61/10.
[6] Report of the International Law Commission,A/56/10.
[7] Report of the International Law Commission,A/57/10.
[8] Report of the International Law Commission,A/51/10.
[9] First Report on Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities,A/cn.4/487.
[10] Second Report on Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities, A/cn.4/501.
[11] Third Report on Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities, A/cn.4/510.
[12] First report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities,A/cn.4/531.
[13] Second report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities,A/cn.4/540.
[12] Third report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities,A/cn.4/566.
[13] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1963.
[14] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1969
[15] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1970.
[16] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1973.
[17] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1978.
[18] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1980.
[19] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1981.
[20] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1987.
[21] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1994.
[22] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1996.
[1]联大第799(八)决议。
[2]联大第28届会议第3071号决议。
[3]联大第31届会议第31/97号决议。
[4]《关于环境与发展的里约宣言》:应用和执行,秘书长的报告,E/CN.17/1997/8。
[1] Radionuclide contamination of foods:FAO recommended limits, www.fao.org/docrep/U5900t/u5900t08.html,,最后访问:2011年2月4日。
[2] European Commission, White Paper on Environmental Liability, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/liability/white_paper.html,最后访问:2011年1月24日。
[3] 1992 Fund Claims Manual, http://www.iopcfund.org/compensation.html,最后访问:2011年3月1日。
[4] Precaution from Rio to Jahannesburg, Published by UNEP, 2002, http://www.environmenthouse.ch/index.php?page=publications,最后访问:2011年1月24日。
[5] World Bank:World Development Report 1992, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1992,最后访问:2011年2月4日。
[1] Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania).
[2] Barcelona Traction,Light and Power Company,Limited(Belgium v. Spain)(New Application:1962).
[3] Nuclear Tests(New Zealand v.France,Australia v.France).
[4] Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v.Australia).
[5] Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia).
[6] Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court'sJudgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) Case.
[7] Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.
[8] Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970).
1端木正:《国际法》,北京大学出版社2000年第3版,第265-266页。
1 Timo Koivurova. The Case of Vuotos: Interplay Between International, Community and National Environmental Law. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law: Volume 13, Issue 1,pages 47–60, April 2004.
1刘惠荣主编:《国际环境法》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第217-225页。
1 [法]亚历山大·基斯:《国际环境法》,张若思译,法律出版社2000年版,第91页。
2同上。
1陈泉生:《论环境法的基本原则》,《中国法学》,1998年第4期。
2徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第146页。
3王曦:《国际环境法》,法律出版社1998年版,第15页。
1刘惠荣、董跃:《国际环境法》,中国法制出版社2006年版,第31页。
2徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第148页。
1徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第148页。
2徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第203页。
3胡二邦:《环境风险评价实用技术和方法》,中国环境科学出版社年2000年版,第8页。
1徐祥民、孟庆垒:《国际环境法基本原则研究》,中国环境科学出版社2008年版,第161页。
1徐祥民:《极限与分配――再论环境法的本位》,《中国人口·资源与环境》,2003年第4期。
2世界环境与发展委员会:《我们共同的未来》,国家环境保护总局外事办公室译,世界知识出版社1993年版,第19期。
1潘抱存:《国际环境法基本原则的宏观思考》,《法学杂志》,2006年第6期。
2《中国21世纪议程——中国21世纪人口、环境与发展白皮书》,中国环境科学出版社1994年版,第1页。
1许建编:《国际环境法学》,中国环境科学出版社2004年第1版,第104页。
1端木正编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社2000年第3版,第56页。
2李耀芳:《国际环境法缘起》,中山大学出版社2002年第1版,第31页。
1 Stephen McCaffrey, The Law of International Watercourses, Non-Navigational Uses, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 403.
1 [法]亚历山大·基斯:《国际环境法》,张若思译,法律出版社2000年版,第107页。
1 [法]亚历山大·基斯:《国际环境法》,张若思译,法律出版社2000年版,第117页。
1 Ved P. Nanda, George Pring, International Environmental Law for the 21st Century, Transnational Publishers, Inc. ,2003(17).
1张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第348页。
1张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第149页。
1 Jutta Brunnee,“Between Sovereignty, Efficiency, and Legitimacy: Lawmaking under Multilateral Environmental Agreements”, in Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Obijiofor Aginam, Humanizing Our Global Order: Essays in Honour of Ivan Head, University of Toronto Press, 2033, p.64.
2张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第278页。
1 R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Instalment 7, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 1984, p. 62.
2 Malcolm D. Evans, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.166.
3张小平:《全球环境治理的法律框架》,法律出版社2008年版,第299页。
1 Dinah Shelton (ed. ), Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.237-239.
[1]《中国大百科全书(环境科学卷)》,中国大百科出版社1983年版。
[2]王亿同主编译:《英汉辞海》,国防工业出版社1987年版。
[3] [美]弗卡普拉:《绿色政治:全球的希望》,石音译,东方出版社1988年版。
[4]金瑞林主编:《环境法学》,北京大学1990年版。
[5]叶明照:《国际环境法概论》,厦门大学出版社1992年版。
[6]中国环境报社编译:《迈向21世纪-联合国环境与发展大会文献汇编》,中国环境科学出版社1992年版。
[7]王利明:《侵权行为法归责原则研究》,中国政法大学出版社1992年版。
[8] [英]詹宁斯瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版。
[9]蔡守秋:《环境法教程》,法律出版社1995年版。
[10]经济合作与发展组织:《贸易的环境影响》,丁德宇等译,中国环境科学出版社1996年版。
[11]陈致中编著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版。
[12]汪劲:《环境法律德理念与价值追求》,法律出版社2000年版。
[13] [美]爱蒂丝·布朗·魏伊丝:《公平地对待未来人类:国际法、共同遗产与世代间衡平》,汪劲等译,法律出版社2000年版。
[14]高家伟:《欧洲环境法》,工商出版社2000年版。
[15] [日]原田尚彦:《环境法》,于敏译,法律出版社2001年版。
[16]王曦主编:《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》第1卷,法律出版社2002年版。
[17]联合国环境规划署:《环境法教程》,王曦等译,法律出版社2002年版。
[18]贺其治:《国家责任法及案例浅析》,法律出版社2003年版。
[19]傅济熙:《核损害的民事责任与赔偿》,原子能出版社2003年版。
[20]王曦编著:《国际环境法》,法律出版社2004年第2版。
[21]徐爱国:《英美侵权行为法学》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
[22]王曦主编:《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》第2卷,法律出版社2005年版。
[23]汪劲:《环境法学》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
[24]邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》,商务印书馆2006年版。
[25] [英]妮古拉·莱西:《哈特的一生:噩梦与美梦》,谌洪果译,法律出版社2006年版。
[26]徐国平:《船舶油污损害赔偿法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社2006年版。
[1]毛庆国:《我国各法域间的跨界环境影响评价问题》,中国环境科学学会成立20周年大会,1999年。
[2]毛庆国:《粤港跨界环境影响评价问题研究》,《加入WTO和中国科技与可持续发展——挑战与机遇、责任和对策(上册)》,中国科协2002年学术年会。
[3]杨作精:《略论环境管理模式的重大变革——ISO14000系列标准剖析》,《上海环境科学》,1996年第15第10期。
[4]张永泽、陈晓霞:《欧洲与北美的环境立法及实践趋势》,《北方环境》,1999年2期。
[5]汪劲:《环境问题的全球化及其法律对策》,《法制与社会发展》2000年第5期。
[6]林灿铃:《论国际法不加禁止之行为所产生的损害性后果的国家责任》,《比较法研究》2000年第3期。
[7]张若思:《贸易与环境》,《环球法律评论》2002年第4期。
[8]张若思:《世界贸易组织内的“环境”争端》,《环球法律评论》2002年第4期。
[9]李雅云:《核损害责任法律制度研究》,《环境法律评论》2002年秋季号。
[10]张秀梅:《组织建立ISO14001环境管理体系与环境影响评价关系的探讨》,《中国ISO14000认证》,2002年第3期。
[11]周训芳:《环境概念与环境法对环境概念的选择》,《安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年第5期。
[12]那力、杨炀:《国际环境损害责任私法化》,《当代法学》2004年第4期。
[13]刘湘溶、刘雪丰:《论国家的国际环境责任》,《湖南社会科学》2004年第1期。
[14]王超锋:《跨界环境影响评价制度的实施问题研究》,《淮海工学院学报(人文社会科学版)》,2004年第4期。
[15]王曦:《论国际法不加禁止之行为引起有害后果之国际法责任》,《社会科学》2006年第4期。
[16]那力:《国际环境损害责任的两个重大变化》,《法商研究》2006年第6期。
[17]青立花:《论跨界环境影响评价制度的实施问题及建议》,《企业家天地下半月刊(理论版)》,2007年第2期。
[18]曾珩、刘丽:《论我国环境影响评价制度(EIA)中公众参与机制的完善》,《科技创新导报》,2007年第31期。
[19]刁翔正:《从国际战略环境影响评价的发展反思我国的环境影响评价制度》,《商场现代化》,2007年第28期。
[20]田武:《ISO管理体系标准的发展趋势和应对建议》,《中国认证认可》,2010年第1期。
[21]陈戈:《ISO发挥国际标准应对气候变化的作用》,《中国认证认可》,2010年第2期。
[22]王欢欢:《欧盟环境评价制度探析——以法律渊源为视角》,《北京林业大学学报(社会科学版)》,2010年04期。
[23]叶波:《试论国际法上的承诺》,《国际展望》2010年04期。
[24]李伟芳:《跨界环境损害法律责任论》,2007年华东政法大学博士论文。
[25]杨振发:《建立澜沧江—湄公河流域跨界环境影响评价制度若干问题的研究》,2005年昆明理工大学硕士论文。
[26]孙刚:《跨界河流污染防治法律问题研究》,2007年郑州大学硕士论文。
[27]王冬梅:《突发性跨界水污染全过程风险评价研究》,2009年哈尔滨工业大学硕士论文。
[28]邵磊:《跨界突发性大气环境风险源分级评价研究》,2009年大连理工大学硕士论文。
[29]朱义亭:《论跨界环境损害的民事责任》,2009年中国海洋大学硕士论文。
[30]林长喜:《跨界重大水污染事故风险源识别技术体系的研究与应用》,2009年哈尔滨工业大学硕士论文。
[31]刘金霞:《危险活动造成跨界损害的责任初探》,2009年中国政法大学硕士论文。
[1] Garrett Hardin:“The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, VOL.162.
[2] Jutta Brunnee:Of Sence and Sensibility:Reflection on International Liability Regimes as Tools For Environmental Peotection,Interational and Comparative Law Quartely,Volume 53 Part 2.
[3] Harold and Margaret Sprout:Toward a Politics of the Planet Earth,NewYork, Van Nostrand Reinhold 1971.
[4] Richard A.Falk:A Study of Future worlds,The Free Press 1975.
[5] Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,Merriam-Webster 1987.
[6] M.C.W.Pinto:Reflection On International Liability For Injurious Consequences Arising Out Of Acts Not Prohibited By International Law,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 1985.
[7] Sanford E.Gaines:International Principles for Transnational Environmental Liability:Can Developments in Municipal Law Help Break the Impasse?Harvard International Law Journal,winter 1989,Vol.30.
[8] O.Schachter:International Law in Theory and Practice,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991.
[9] Francesco Francioni and Tullio Scovazzi:International Responsibility for Environmental Harm,Graham&Trontman Limited 1991.
[10] H.L.A Hart:Concept Of Law,second edition,Oxford University Press 1994.
[11] G M BATES:Environmental Law in Australia,Butterworths 1995.
[12] D.J.Harris:Case and Materials on International Law,Sweet&Maxwell 1998.
[13] Marie-Louis Larsson:The Law of Environmental Damage:Liability and Reparation,The Hague Kluwer Law International 1999.
[14] Black’s Law Dictionary,seventh edition,West Group 1999.
[15] Alexandre Kiss and Dinach Shelton:International Environmental law,Transnational Publishers 2000.
[16] Edward H.P.Brans:Liability for Damage to Public Nature Resources, Kluwer Law International 2001.
[17] Bergkamp,Lucas:Laibility and environment:private and public law aspect of civil liability for environmental harm in an international context,Kluwer Law International 2001.
[18] Michael Bowman and Alan Boyle:Environmental Damage in International and Comparative Law,Oxford University Press 2002.
[19] Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English,Oxford University Press 2002.
[20] P.W.BIRVIE and A.E.BOYLE:International Law and The environment, Oxford University Press 2002.
[21] Paula M,Pevato:International Environmental Law,Dartmouth Publishing Company 2002.
[22] Reno Provost:State Responsibility in International Law,Darmouth Publishing Company 2002.
[23] Philippe sands:Principles of international environmental law,Cambridge University Press 2003.
[24] XUE HANQIN: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge University Press 2003.
[25] Carter, Trimble, Bradley: International Law, Aspen Publishers 2003.
[26] Richard A. Epstein: Cases and Materials on Torts, Citic Publishing House 2003.
[27] Ian Brownlie: Principles of Public International Law, Sixth Edition, Oxford University Press 2003.
[28] A.E.Boyle: Globalising Environmental Liability: The Interplay of National and International Law,Journal of Environmental Law 2005.
[29] David Hunter, James Salzman, Durwood Zaeleke: International Environmental Law And Policy, Third Edition, Foundation Press 2007.
[30] Kees Bastmeijer, Timo Koivurova: Theory and Practice of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers / Brill Academic 2007.
[31] B. Carroll and T. Turpin: Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook, 2nd edition, Thomas Telford Publishing 2009.
[32] Kevin Hanna: Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation, Oxford University Press 2009.
[33] Bram F. Noble: Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice, Oxford University Press 2009.
[34] DJ Harris: Cases and Materials on International Law, Six Edition Sweet& Maxwell 2009.
[35] Tarek A. Kassim: Environmental Impact Assessment of Recycled Wastes on Surface and Ground Waters: Risk Analysis, Springer 2010.
[36] Neil Craik: The International Law of Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Substance and Integration, Cambridge University Press 2010
[37] Michael Schmidt, John Glasson, Lars Emmelin, Hendrike Helbron: Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment (Environmental Protection in the European Union), Springer 2010.
[38] Simon Marsden and Timo Koivurova, Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in the European Union: The Espoo Convention and Its Kiev Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan Pubns Ltd 2011.
[39] Charles H. Eccleston: Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Best Professional Practices, CRC Press 2011.
[1] Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities.
[2] Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities with Commentaries.
[3] First Report on Diplomatic Protection,A/CN.4/506.
[4] Survey of International Law in Relation to the Work of Codification of International Law Commission,A/CN.4/1/Rev.1.
[5] Report of the International Law Commission,A/61/10.
[6] Report of the International Law Commission,A/56/10.
[7] Report of the International Law Commission,A/57/10.
[8] Report of the International Law Commission,A/51/10.
[9] First Report on Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities,A/cn.4/487.
[10] Second Report on Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities, A/cn.4/501.
[11] Third Report on Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities, A/cn.4/510.
[12] First report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities,A/cn.4/531.
[13] Second report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities,A/cn.4/540.
[12] Third report on the legal regime for allocation of loss in case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities,A/cn.4/566.
[13] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1963.
[14] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1969
[15] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1970.
[16] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1973.
[17] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1978.
[18] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1980.
[19] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1981.
[20] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1987.
[21] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1994.
[22] Yearbook of International Law Commission 1996.
[1]联大第799(八)决议。
[2]联大第28届会议第3071号决议。
[3]联大第31届会议第31/97号决议。
[4]《关于环境与发展的里约宣言》:应用和执行,秘书长的报告,E/CN.17/1997/8。
[1] Radionuclide contamination of foods:FAO recommended limits, www.fao.org/docrep/U5900t/u5900t08.html,,最后访问:2011年2月4日。
[2] European Commission, White Paper on Environmental Liability, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/liability/white_paper.html,最后访问:2011年1月24日。
[3] 1992 Fund Claims Manual, http://www.iopcfund.org/compensation.html,最后访问:2011年3月1日。
[4] Precaution from Rio to Jahannesburg, Published by UNEP, 2002, http://www.environmenthouse.ch/index.php?page=publications,最后访问:2011年1月24日。
[5] World Bank:World Development Report 1992, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1992,最后访问:2011年2月4日。
[1] Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania).
[2] Barcelona Traction,Light and Power Company,Limited(Belgium v. Spain)(New Application:1962).
[3] Nuclear Tests(New Zealand v.France,Australia v.France).
[4] Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v.Australia).
[5] Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia).
[6] Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court'sJudgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) Case.
[7] Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.
[8] Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970).