Research On The Problems Of Proof In The Environmental Public Interest Litigation In China

The importance of proof problem is self-evident, which runs through the whole process of trial in a case. The laws and regulations of relevant evidence provide the basis and guarantee of proof, besides, distribution rules of burden of proof also allot the burden between plaintiffs and defendants by the content of substantive law. The substantive law in China has relatively clear rules on the allocation of the burden of proof, but in the view of judicial practice, relying on the principled distribution rules of the burden of proof only cannot completely solve the problem of proof.It is particularly evident in the environmental public interest litigation, which is just confirmed by legislation. Now, environmental public interest legislation is still applying the rules of environment tort public civil lawsuits---onus probandi inversion in terms of the burden of proof. But, in fact, environmental public interest litigation is quite different with environmental tort lawsuit on the items of extension, prosecution subject and aim. It is improper to apply the same distribution rules of the burden of proof in them.So, the necessity for exploring the problem of environmental public interest litigation proof is vital. When it comes to proof problem, many scholars mainly focus on the concrete distribution of the burden of proof, whose concentration is on the concrete distribution between adversaries in terms of facts. However, in view of the problems of proof of the environmental public interest litigation in China, it cannot be properly handled if the spot is only on the allocation of the burden of proof without corresponding institutional guarantee.In addition, the theory of the burden of proof in China is relatively backward. In the judicial practice, the burden of proof in different laws has different meanings, which can cause many problems, including mismatching between the legislative intent and the judicial practice and different sentence in a similar case. A saying goes that the root is not correct, not straight seedlings, so that it is necessary to clarify the radical connotations of the burden of proof. The environmental public interest litigation is still in the pilot stage, which means that it needs to establish solid theoretical foundation from the start. This paper begins with the basic concepts, functions and properties of the burden of proof, combines with the characteristics of the environmental public interest litigation,discusses the theoretical basis, program design, construction of framework and the current obstacles and countermeasures of the environmental pubic interest litigation, sets up an all-round system of environmental public interest litigation of the burden of proof. The article is based on the concept of the burden of proof, implementing the dualism of burden in the judicial practice, analyzing the current predicament and its causes of the environmental public interest litigation proof deeply, clarifying the process of “hard proof” of environmental public interest litigation, targeting to solve the proof problem by layering the burden of proof and standardizing the scope of discretion of the judge, which not only maintain the stability and continuity of the policy and law, but can fully exam the particularity of environmental public interest litigation. To solve the proof problem, from two aspects of the connotation of the burden of proof—providing evidence responsibility and risk of losing responsibility, we can limit the risk of losing in a legal scope, figure out the way of providing evidence with more measures to be the basis of abundant evidence.