法治强化能够促进污染治理吗?——来自环保法庭设立的证据
|
摘要
强化法治是生态环境建设的重要保障,也是确保环境法律法规发挥作用的关键所在。本文利用中国2007年开始在中级人民法院设立环保法庭这一准自然实验,运用283个地级市2003—2014年的面板数据和双重差分方法,评估了环保司法强化对环境污染治理的影响。研究表明:第一,环保法庭有效降低了工业污染物的排放总量和人均排放量,法治强化能够促进环境污染治理。第二,环保法庭的污染治理效应受到环保法庭的组织效率和该项制度的执行情况的影响;相比于环保合议庭,环保审判庭的减排效应更加明显,实际运行良好的环保法庭更能够促进环境污染治理。第三,在作用机制上,设立环保法庭能够有效改善地区环境污染纠纷司法处理水平,提升政府环境行政处罚和公众环保参与度;在居民司法维权、公众环保参与和政府环境监管程度越高的地区,法治强化的污染治理效应更加明显。本文的结论意味着,在完善环保法律法规体系的同时,还应该不断加强环境司法的能力建设和法治水平,实现中国环境污染治理"有法可依"与"有法必依"的同步推进。
Serious environmental pollution has become a major problem in China. However, the traditional governance mode reflects obvious administrative intervention and uncertainty and the environmental pollution situation in China has not been fundamentally reversed. To promote the construction of a normalization mechanism for environmental governance, it is important to improve the legalization of environmental pollution control, which has become an important direction of China's environmental governance reform in recent years.The rule of laws in environmental governance consists of two levels, the construction of laws and the building of judicial capacity. Since the promulgation of the Environmental Protection Law in 1989, China's environmental laws have gradually improved. However, China has been slow to build judicial capacity. The importance of environmental justice for pollution control both is reflected in its own pollution control role and, more importantly, provides a strong basis for environmental administrative punishments. This helps to provide clear definitions of property rights for emissions trading. To improve the efficiency of environmental justice, China started to develop its environmental court system at the beginning of the 21 st century. In 2007, the first true environmental court was formally established in the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court. The pilot has expanded and become a key force in promoting the rule of law in environmental pollution control in China.This paper empirically evaluates the pollution control effect of environmental courts using the difference-in-differences method. First, we examine the impact of environmental courts on regional industrial pollutants emission reductions by matching the industrial waste water and industrial SO_2 emissions data of prefecture-level cities. Then, using public data from referee documents and the annual work reports of the courts, we examine the role of environmental courts in the efficiency of the judicial treatment of environmental pollution disputes across regions and analyze the mechanisms that promote judicial efficiency through placebo testing and other policy interventions. Finally, we analyze how the effect of environmental courts on pollution control depends on regional characteristics.We have three findings. First, the establishment of environmental courts effectively reduces the total discharge of industrial pollutants and per capital emissions in the pilot areas, especially for industrial waste water, meaning that the courts have a certain dynamic governance effect on industrial pollution. Second, the court's effect is affected by the organizational efficiency of the court and the implementation of the system. Compared with a collegiate bench, the effectiveness of a trial court's emission reduction is more obvious. Environmental courts that are running well promote environmental pollution control. Third, environmental courts improve both the level of pollution in a region and government environmental regulations, whose control effect has obvious heterogeneities across regions. In areas where public participation in the environment, measured as residents' involvement in judicial proceedings and government environmental supervision, is higher, environmental courts have more significant pollution control effects. The environmental justice specialization reform represented by the environmental court promotes the improvement of the judicial treatment of environmental disputes. Moreover, strengthening the environmental rule of law improves local governments' pollution control efforts and public environmental participation. This paper has two main contributions. First, we identify the impact of China's environmental courts and assess their environmental pollution control effect. Second, we provide a reference for understanding the dynamic effects of pollution control and the heterogeneous effects of environmental courts across regions to promote the formation of a comprehensive pollution control legal system in China.
Serious environmental pollution has become a major problem in China. However, the traditional governance mode reflects obvious administrative intervention and uncertainty and the environmental pollution situation in China has not been fundamentally reversed. To promote the construction of a normalization mechanism for environmental governance, it is important to improve the legalization of environmental pollution control, which has become an important direction of China's environmental governance reform in recent years.The rule of laws in environmental governance consists of two levels, the construction of laws and the building of judicial capacity. Since the promulgation of the Environmental Protection Law in 1989, China's environmental laws have gradually improved. However, China has been slow to build judicial capacity. The importance of environmental justice for pollution control both is reflected in its own pollution control role and, more importantly, provides a strong basis for environmental administrative punishments. This helps to provide clear definitions of property rights for emissions trading. To improve the efficiency of environmental justice, China started to develop its environmental court system at the beginning of the 21 st century. In 2007, the first true environmental court was formally established in the Guiyang Intermediate People's Court. The pilot has expanded and become a key force in promoting the rule of law in environmental pollution control in China.This paper empirically evaluates the pollution control effect of environmental courts using the difference-in-differences method. First, we examine the impact of environmental courts on regional industrial pollutants emission reductions by matching the industrial waste water and industrial SO_2 emissions data of prefecture-level cities. Then, using public data from referee documents and the annual work reports of the courts, we examine the role of environmental courts in the efficiency of the judicial treatment of environmental pollution disputes across regions and analyze the mechanisms that promote judicial efficiency through placebo testing and other policy interventions. Finally, we analyze how the effect of environmental courts on pollution control depends on regional characteristics.We have three findings. First, the establishment of environmental courts effectively reduces the total discharge of industrial pollutants and per capital emissions in the pilot areas, especially for industrial waste water, meaning that the courts have a certain dynamic governance effect on industrial pollution. Second, the court's effect is affected by the organizational efficiency of the court and the implementation of the system. Compared with a collegiate bench, the effectiveness of a trial court's emission reduction is more obvious. Environmental courts that are running well promote environmental pollution control. Third, environmental courts improve both the level of pollution in a region and government environmental regulations, whose control effect has obvious heterogeneities across regions. In areas where public participation in the environment, measured as residents' involvement in judicial proceedings and government environmental supervision, is higher, environmental courts have more significant pollution control effects. The environmental justice specialization reform represented by the environmental court promotes the improvement of the judicial treatment of environmental disputes. Moreover, strengthening the environmental rule of law improves local governments' pollution control efforts and public environmental participation. This paper has two main contributions. First, we identify the impact of China's environmental courts and assess their environmental pollution control effect. Second, we provide a reference for understanding the dynamic effects of pollution control and the heterogeneous effects of environmental courts across regions to promote the formation of a comprehensive pollution control legal system in China.
引文
包群、彭水军,2006:《经济增长与环境污染:基于面板数据的联立方程估计》,《世界经济》第11期。
包群、邵敏、杨大利,2013:《环境管制抑制了污染排放吗?》,《经济研究》第12期。
陈增宝,2008:《合议制的原理与规则——基于群体决策理论的检视》,《法律适用》第5期。
戴魁早,2018:《技术市场发展对出口技术复杂度的影响及其作用机制》,《中国工业经济》第7期。
范海玉、王琳,2010:《环境纠纷司法解决机制的检视与思考——以环境审判机构改革为视角》,《河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第6期。
郭峰、石庆玲,2017:《官员更替、合谋震慑与空气质量的临时性改善》,《经济研究》第7期。
郭武,2017:《论环境行政与环境司法联动的中国模式》,《法学评论》第2期。
韩超、刘鑫颖、王海,2016,《规制官员激励与行为偏好——独立性缺失下环境规制失效新解》,《管理世界》第2期。
黄莎、李广兵,2010:《环保法庭的合法性和正当性论证——兼与刘超博士商榷》,《法学评论》第5期。
黄晓云,2013:《清镇:“污染”逼出来的环保法庭》,《中国审判》第6期。
黄滢、刘庆、王敏,2016:《地方政府的环境治理决策:基于SO2减排的面板数据分析》,《世界经济》第12期。
李树、陈刚,2013:《环境管制与生产率增长——以APPCL2000的修订为例》,《经济研究》第1期。
梁平汉、高楠,2014:《人事变更、法制环境和地方环境污染》,《管理世界》第6期。
刘超,2015:《环境侵权行为违法性的证成与判定》,《法学评论》第5期。
刘超,2012:《环保法庭在突破环境侵权诉讼困局中的挣扎与困境》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期。
刘鸿志、申哲民、崔凤山、张文强、郭米娜,2017:《运用司法手段解决环境问题——无锡环保审判的创新与成效》,《环境保护》第13期。
刘郁、陈钊,2016:《中国的环境规制:政策及其成效》,《经济社会体制比较》第1期。
陆铭、冯皓,2014:《集聚与减排:城市规模差距影响工业污染强度的经验研究》,《世界经济》第7期。
祁毓、卢洪友、张宁川,2016:《环境规制能实现“降污”和“增效”的双赢吗——来自环保重点城市“达标”与“非达标”准实验的证据》,《财贸经济》第9期。
石庆玲、陈诗一、郭峰,2017:《环保部约谈与环境治理:以空气污染为例》,《统计研究》第10期。
涂正革、谌仁俊,2015:《排污权交易机制在中国能否实现波特效应?》,《经济研究》第7期。
汪兴国、杭昀竹,2014:《江苏省环保法庭的现实困境及机制完善》,《南京社会科学》第4期。
王惠琴、何怡平,2014:《雾霾治理中公众参与的影响因素与路径优化》,《重庆社会科学》第12期。
王敏、黄滢,2015:《中国的环境污染与经济增长》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期。
王少波、郑建明,2007:《我国古代的环保法制及其对当代的启示》,《国际商务——对外经济贸易大学学报》第6期。
王树义,2014:《论生态文明建设与环境司法改革》,《中国法学》第3期。
王树义、冯汝,2014:《我国环境刑事司法的困境及其对策》,《法学评论》第3期。
魏佳、付健、曹平,2014:《环保法庭设立的困境与出路——以司法专门化设计为视角》,《学术论坛》第5期。
徐刚,2014:《环保法庭审判模式的规范化反思——以三审合一模式为视角》,《中国人口·资源与环境》第5期。
许尚豪,2017:《公民代理民事诉讼的法理反思及制度完善》,《法学论坛》第4期。
徐现祥、李书娟,2015:《政治资源与环境污染》,《经济学报》第1期。
许和连、邓玉萍,2012:《外商直接投资导致了中国的环境污染吗?——基于中国省际面板数据的空间计量研究》,《管理世界》第2期。
杨帆、李建国,2013:《对我国设立环保法庭的几点法律思考——实践、质疑、反思与展望》,《法学杂志》第11期。
杨海生、陈少凌、周永章,2008:《地方政府竞争与环境政策——来自中国省份数据的证据》,《南方经济》第6期。
叶榅平,2010:《论我国合议庭制度的完善》,《法商研究》第6期。
于文超、何勤英,2013:《辖区经济增长绩效与环境污染事故——基于官员政绩诉求的视角》,《世界经济文汇》第2期。
张宝,2014:《环境司法专门化的建构路径》,《郑州大学学报(社会科学版)》第6期。
张红凤、周峰、杨慧、郭庆,2009:《环境保护与经济发展双赢的规制绩效实证分析》,《经济研究》第3期。
张华,2016:《地区间环境规制的策略互动研究——对环境规制非完全执行普遍性的解释》,《中国工业经济》第7期。
张新宝、庄超,2014:《扩张与强化:环境侵权责任的综合适用》,《中国社会科学》第3期。
邹川宁、王雷,2008:《审判组织治理的实证研究》,《人民司法》第1期。
郑思齐、万广华、孙伟增、罗党论,2013:《公众诉求与城市环境治理》,《管理世界》第6期。
张式军,2016:《环保法庭的困境与出路——以环保法庭的受案范围为视角》,《法学论坛》第2期。
张忠民,2016:《环境司法专门化发展的实证检视:以环境审判机构和环境审判机制为中心》,《中国法学》第6期。
Almer, C., and T. Goeschl, 2010, “Environment Crime and Punishment: Empirical Evidence from the German Penal Code”, Land Economics, 86(4), 707—726.
Andreoni, J., and A. Levinson, 2001, “The Simple Analytics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Journal of Public Economics, 80(2), 269—286.
Anisimov, A. P., and A.Y. Ryzhenkov, 2013, “Environmental Courts in Russia: To be or Not to be?”, International Lawyer, 47(3),441—458.
Chen, Y. Y., G. Z. Jin, N. Kumar, and G. Shi, 2013, “The Promise of Beijing: Evaluating the Impact of the 2008 Olympic Games on Air Quality”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(3), 424—443.
Currie, D. P., 1977, “Congress, the Court, and Water pollution”, Supreme Court Review, 39—62.
Duvivier, C., and H. Xiong, 2013, “Trans Boundary Pollution in China: A Study of Polluting Firms' Location Choices in Hebei Province”, Environment and Development Economics, 18(4), 459—483.
Diamant, N. J., S. B. Lubman, and K. J. O'Brien, 2005, Engaging the Law in China: State, Society, and Possibilities for Justice, Stanford Calif: Stanford University Press.
Edwards,V., 2013, “A Review of the Court of Justice's Case Law in Relation to Waste and Environmental Impact Assessment: 1992—2011”, Journal of Environmental Law, 25 (3), 515—530.
Farzin, Y. H., and C. A. Bond, 2006, “Democracy and Environmental Quality”, Journal of Development Economics, 81(1), 213—235.
Fowlie, M., S. P. Holland, and E.T. Mansur, 2012, “What Do Emissions Markets Deliver and to Whom? Evidence from Southern California's NOx Trading Program”, American Economic Review, 102(2), 965—993.
Harrison, J., 2013, “Reflections on the Role of International Courts and Tribunals in the Settlement of Environmental Disputes and the Development of International Environmental Law”, Journal of Environmental Law, 25 (3), 501—514.
Hausmann, R., J. Hwang, and D. Rodrik, 2005, “What You Export Matters”, NBER Working Paper No.11905.
Higgs, S., 2007, “Mediating Sustainability: The Public Interest Mediator in the New Zealand Environment Court”, Environmental Law, 37(1), 61—104.
Jacobs, F., 2006, “The Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of the Environment”, Journal of Environmental Law, 8(2), 185—205.
Lord, C., 2014, “Judges and the Common Laws of the Environment-At Home and Abroad”, Journal of Environmental Law, 26 (2),177—187.
List, J. A., and C. Y. Co, 2000, “The Effects of Environmental Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40, 1—20.
McClellan, P., 2005, “Expert Evidence-The Experience of the Land and Environment Court”, National Forensic Accounting Conference.
McClellan, P., 2009, “The Recent Experience of the Land & Environment Court”, Australia: 22nd ALJA Annual Conference, 1—20.
Pearlman, C. J., 1993, “Letter to ALJ forum”, Australian Law Journal, 1, 18—21.
Preston, B. J., 2007, “The Land and Environment Court of NSW: Moving Towards to a Multi-door Courthouse”, Sydney: Land and Environment Court of NSW, 1—25.
Preston, B. J., 2012, “Benefits of Judicial Specialization in Environmental Law: The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales as a Case Study”, Pace Environmental Law Review, 3, 396—440.
Ren, S. G., X. L. Li, B. L. Yuan, D.Y. Li, and X.H. Chen, 2018, “The Effects of three Types of Environmental Regulation on Eco-efficiency: A Cross-region Analysis in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 245—255.
Viard, V. B., and S. F. Fu, 2015, “The Effect of Beijing's Driving Restrictions on Pollution and Economic Activity”, Journal of Public Economics, 125, 98—115.
Walters, R., and D. Westerhuis, 2013, “Green Crime and the Role of Environmental Courts”, Crime, Law and Social Change, 59(3), 279—290.
Wang, C. F., 2013, “The Specialized Reform of Environmental Justice in China”, China Legal Science, (4), 29—51.
Xu, B., and J. Y. Lu, 2009, “Foreign Direct Investment, Processing Trade and the Sophistication of China's Exports”, China Economic Review, 20(3), 425—439.
Zhang, B., X. L. Chen, and H. X. Guo, 2018, “Does Central Supervision Enhance Local Environmental Enforcement? Quasi-experimental Evidence from China”, Journal of Public Economics, 164,70—90.
(1)资料来源:凤凰网,http://news.ifeng.com/gundong/detail_2013_08/17/28728168_0.shtml。
(2)在中国,中级人民法院设立的环保法庭存在环保审判庭、环保合议庭和巡回法庭三种形式,由于巡回法庭并不固定,且数量很少,本文仅将审判庭和合议庭作为分析对象。
(3)《习近平总书记系列重要讲话读本(2016年版)》中指出,“绿水青山就是金山银山”。
(4)资料来源:首家环保法庭的10年“环保”路:创多个全国第一,http://www.xinhuanet.com/legal/2017-05/13/c_1120965910.htm。
(5)转引自中南财经政法大学环境资源法研究所张宝副教授:《我国环境保护审判组织概览》(截至2014年06月24日),载http://ahlawyers.fyfz.cn/art/406851.htm。
(6)受篇幅限制,变量描述性统计结果未报告,如有需要可向作者索取。
(7)受篇幅限制,PM2.5的分析过程和估计结果未列出,如有需要可向作者索要。
(8)感谢审稿专家的宝贵意见,受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(9)中国网,首家环保法庭的10年“环保”路:创多个全国第一, http://www.china.com.cn/news/2017-05/13/content_40805485.htm。
(10)感谢审稿专家的宝贵意见,受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(11)受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(12)当年的环境行政处罚和环境问题来信数与当年的工业污染可能存在正向关系,因此,选择滞后一期数据来研究环境行政处罚力度和公众环保参与对工业污染物排放的影响。
(13)受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(14)此处赋值方式如下:例如,2010年,实际有6个地级市设立了环保法庭,那么对前一年全部地级市的工业废水排放总量从大到小排序,假想排放总量最大的6个地级市被选定为环保法庭试点地区,对这6个地级市赋值为1,其余地级市赋值为0。其余年份赋值方式类似。
(15)受篇幅限制,此处未列出详细回归结果,如有需要可向作者索取。
包群、邵敏、杨大利,2013:《环境管制抑制了污染排放吗?》,《经济研究》第12期。
陈增宝,2008:《合议制的原理与规则——基于群体决策理论的检视》,《法律适用》第5期。
戴魁早,2018:《技术市场发展对出口技术复杂度的影响及其作用机制》,《中国工业经济》第7期。
范海玉、王琳,2010:《环境纠纷司法解决机制的检视与思考——以环境审判机构改革为视角》,《河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第6期。
郭峰、石庆玲,2017:《官员更替、合谋震慑与空气质量的临时性改善》,《经济研究》第7期。
郭武,2017:《论环境行政与环境司法联动的中国模式》,《法学评论》第2期。
韩超、刘鑫颖、王海,2016,《规制官员激励与行为偏好——独立性缺失下环境规制失效新解》,《管理世界》第2期。
黄莎、李广兵,2010:《环保法庭的合法性和正当性论证——兼与刘超博士商榷》,《法学评论》第5期。
黄晓云,2013:《清镇:“污染”逼出来的环保法庭》,《中国审判》第6期。
黄滢、刘庆、王敏,2016:《地方政府的环境治理决策:基于SO2减排的面板数据分析》,《世界经济》第12期。
李树、陈刚,2013:《环境管制与生产率增长——以APPCL2000的修订为例》,《经济研究》第1期。
梁平汉、高楠,2014:《人事变更、法制环境和地方环境污染》,《管理世界》第6期。
刘超,2015:《环境侵权行为违法性的证成与判定》,《法学评论》第5期。
刘超,2012:《环保法庭在突破环境侵权诉讼困局中的挣扎与困境》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第4期。
刘鸿志、申哲民、崔凤山、张文强、郭米娜,2017:《运用司法手段解决环境问题——无锡环保审判的创新与成效》,《环境保护》第13期。
刘郁、陈钊,2016:《中国的环境规制:政策及其成效》,《经济社会体制比较》第1期。
陆铭、冯皓,2014:《集聚与减排:城市规模差距影响工业污染强度的经验研究》,《世界经济》第7期。
祁毓、卢洪友、张宁川,2016:《环境规制能实现“降污”和“增效”的双赢吗——来自环保重点城市“达标”与“非达标”准实验的证据》,《财贸经济》第9期。
石庆玲、陈诗一、郭峰,2017:《环保部约谈与环境治理:以空气污染为例》,《统计研究》第10期。
涂正革、谌仁俊,2015:《排污权交易机制在中国能否实现波特效应?》,《经济研究》第7期。
汪兴国、杭昀竹,2014:《江苏省环保法庭的现实困境及机制完善》,《南京社会科学》第4期。
王惠琴、何怡平,2014:《雾霾治理中公众参与的影响因素与路径优化》,《重庆社会科学》第12期。
王敏、黄滢,2015:《中国的环境污染与经济增长》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期。
王少波、郑建明,2007:《我国古代的环保法制及其对当代的启示》,《国际商务——对外经济贸易大学学报》第6期。
王树义,2014:《论生态文明建设与环境司法改革》,《中国法学》第3期。
王树义、冯汝,2014:《我国环境刑事司法的困境及其对策》,《法学评论》第3期。
魏佳、付健、曹平,2014:《环保法庭设立的困境与出路——以司法专门化设计为视角》,《学术论坛》第5期。
徐刚,2014:《环保法庭审判模式的规范化反思——以三审合一模式为视角》,《中国人口·资源与环境》第5期。
许尚豪,2017:《公民代理民事诉讼的法理反思及制度完善》,《法学论坛》第4期。
徐现祥、李书娟,2015:《政治资源与环境污染》,《经济学报》第1期。
许和连、邓玉萍,2012:《外商直接投资导致了中国的环境污染吗?——基于中国省际面板数据的空间计量研究》,《管理世界》第2期。
杨帆、李建国,2013:《对我国设立环保法庭的几点法律思考——实践、质疑、反思与展望》,《法学杂志》第11期。
杨海生、陈少凌、周永章,2008:《地方政府竞争与环境政策——来自中国省份数据的证据》,《南方经济》第6期。
叶榅平,2010:《论我国合议庭制度的完善》,《法商研究》第6期。
于文超、何勤英,2013:《辖区经济增长绩效与环境污染事故——基于官员政绩诉求的视角》,《世界经济文汇》第2期。
张宝,2014:《环境司法专门化的建构路径》,《郑州大学学报(社会科学版)》第6期。
张红凤、周峰、杨慧、郭庆,2009:《环境保护与经济发展双赢的规制绩效实证分析》,《经济研究》第3期。
张华,2016:《地区间环境规制的策略互动研究——对环境规制非完全执行普遍性的解释》,《中国工业经济》第7期。
张新宝、庄超,2014:《扩张与强化:环境侵权责任的综合适用》,《中国社会科学》第3期。
邹川宁、王雷,2008:《审判组织治理的实证研究》,《人民司法》第1期。
郑思齐、万广华、孙伟增、罗党论,2013:《公众诉求与城市环境治理》,《管理世界》第6期。
张式军,2016:《环保法庭的困境与出路——以环保法庭的受案范围为视角》,《法学论坛》第2期。
张忠民,2016:《环境司法专门化发展的实证检视:以环境审判机构和环境审判机制为中心》,《中国法学》第6期。
Almer, C., and T. Goeschl, 2010, “Environment Crime and Punishment: Empirical Evidence from the German Penal Code”, Land Economics, 86(4), 707—726.
Andreoni, J., and A. Levinson, 2001, “The Simple Analytics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Journal of Public Economics, 80(2), 269—286.
Anisimov, A. P., and A.Y. Ryzhenkov, 2013, “Environmental Courts in Russia: To be or Not to be?”, International Lawyer, 47(3),441—458.
Chen, Y. Y., G. Z. Jin, N. Kumar, and G. Shi, 2013, “The Promise of Beijing: Evaluating the Impact of the 2008 Olympic Games on Air Quality”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(3), 424—443.
Currie, D. P., 1977, “Congress, the Court, and Water pollution”, Supreme Court Review, 39—62.
Duvivier, C., and H. Xiong, 2013, “Trans Boundary Pollution in China: A Study of Polluting Firms' Location Choices in Hebei Province”, Environment and Development Economics, 18(4), 459—483.
Diamant, N. J., S. B. Lubman, and K. J. O'Brien, 2005, Engaging the Law in China: State, Society, and Possibilities for Justice, Stanford Calif: Stanford University Press.
Edwards,V., 2013, “A Review of the Court of Justice's Case Law in Relation to Waste and Environmental Impact Assessment: 1992—2011”, Journal of Environmental Law, 25 (3), 515—530.
Farzin, Y. H., and C. A. Bond, 2006, “Democracy and Environmental Quality”, Journal of Development Economics, 81(1), 213—235.
Fowlie, M., S. P. Holland, and E.T. Mansur, 2012, “What Do Emissions Markets Deliver and to Whom? Evidence from Southern California's NOx Trading Program”, American Economic Review, 102(2), 965—993.
Harrison, J., 2013, “Reflections on the Role of International Courts and Tribunals in the Settlement of Environmental Disputes and the Development of International Environmental Law”, Journal of Environmental Law, 25 (3), 501—514.
Hausmann, R., J. Hwang, and D. Rodrik, 2005, “What You Export Matters”, NBER Working Paper No.11905.
Higgs, S., 2007, “Mediating Sustainability: The Public Interest Mediator in the New Zealand Environment Court”, Environmental Law, 37(1), 61—104.
Jacobs, F., 2006, “The Role of the European Court of Justice in the Protection of the Environment”, Journal of Environmental Law, 8(2), 185—205.
Lord, C., 2014, “Judges and the Common Laws of the Environment-At Home and Abroad”, Journal of Environmental Law, 26 (2),177—187.
List, J. A., and C. Y. Co, 2000, “The Effects of Environmental Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40, 1—20.
McClellan, P., 2005, “Expert Evidence-The Experience of the Land and Environment Court”, National Forensic Accounting Conference.
McClellan, P., 2009, “The Recent Experience of the Land & Environment Court”, Australia: 22nd ALJA Annual Conference, 1—20.
Pearlman, C. J., 1993, “Letter to ALJ forum”, Australian Law Journal, 1, 18—21.
Preston, B. J., 2007, “The Land and Environment Court of NSW: Moving Towards to a Multi-door Courthouse”, Sydney: Land and Environment Court of NSW, 1—25.
Preston, B. J., 2012, “Benefits of Judicial Specialization in Environmental Law: The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales as a Case Study”, Pace Environmental Law Review, 3, 396—440.
Ren, S. G., X. L. Li, B. L. Yuan, D.Y. Li, and X.H. Chen, 2018, “The Effects of three Types of Environmental Regulation on Eco-efficiency: A Cross-region Analysis in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 245—255.
Viard, V. B., and S. F. Fu, 2015, “The Effect of Beijing's Driving Restrictions on Pollution and Economic Activity”, Journal of Public Economics, 125, 98—115.
Walters, R., and D. Westerhuis, 2013, “Green Crime and the Role of Environmental Courts”, Crime, Law and Social Change, 59(3), 279—290.
Wang, C. F., 2013, “The Specialized Reform of Environmental Justice in China”, China Legal Science, (4), 29—51.
Xu, B., and J. Y. Lu, 2009, “Foreign Direct Investment, Processing Trade and the Sophistication of China's Exports”, China Economic Review, 20(3), 425—439.
Zhang, B., X. L. Chen, and H. X. Guo, 2018, “Does Central Supervision Enhance Local Environmental Enforcement? Quasi-experimental Evidence from China”, Journal of Public Economics, 164,70—90.
(1)资料来源:凤凰网,http://news.ifeng.com/gundong/detail_2013_08/17/28728168_0.shtml。
(2)在中国,中级人民法院设立的环保法庭存在环保审判庭、环保合议庭和巡回法庭三种形式,由于巡回法庭并不固定,且数量很少,本文仅将审判庭和合议庭作为分析对象。
(3)《习近平总书记系列重要讲话读本(2016年版)》中指出,“绿水青山就是金山银山”。
(4)资料来源:首家环保法庭的10年“环保”路:创多个全国第一,http://www.xinhuanet.com/legal/2017-05/13/c_1120965910.htm。
(5)转引自中南财经政法大学环境资源法研究所张宝副教授:《我国环境保护审判组织概览》(截至2014年06月24日),载http://ahlawyers.fyfz.cn/art/406851.htm。
(6)受篇幅限制,变量描述性统计结果未报告,如有需要可向作者索取。
(7)受篇幅限制,PM2.5的分析过程和估计结果未列出,如有需要可向作者索要。
(8)感谢审稿专家的宝贵意见,受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(9)中国网,首家环保法庭的10年“环保”路:创多个全国第一, http://www.china.com.cn/news/2017-05/13/content_40805485.htm。
(10)感谢审稿专家的宝贵意见,受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(11)受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(12)当年的环境行政处罚和环境问题来信数与当年的工业污染可能存在正向关系,因此,选择滞后一期数据来研究环境行政处罚力度和公众环保参与对工业污染物排放的影响。
(13)受篇幅限制,此处未报告详细结果,如有需要可向作者索要。
(14)此处赋值方式如下:例如,2010年,实际有6个地级市设立了环保法庭,那么对前一年全部地级市的工业废水排放总量从大到小排序,假想排放总量最大的6个地级市被选定为环保法庭试点地区,对这6个地级市赋值为1,其余地级市赋值为0。其余年份赋值方式类似。
(15)受篇幅限制,此处未列出详细回归结果,如有需要可向作者索取。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |