On "compensation Loss" In China's Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation

“Compensating for damage”is the important concept of penalty for damages, but from the reading of Traditional civil law theory and China's existing laws and regulations,we can find, the concept and content of China's " compensating for damage " differ a lot from the one in Traditional civil law theory,what is the nature of “compensating for damage”, unclear. What's more, does “compensating for damage” can apply to the field of environmental public interest litigation, how to define the scope of the request and other issues,also exist dispute, under the situation that its basic meaning not yet clear. Hence, theoretical analysis is the urgent need to give clearance.The research ideas of this paper: first, interpret the basic theory of “compensating for damage”; second, define the premise of the request scope of “compensating for damage”-- "environmental damage"; again,argue the application space in Environmental Civil Public Litigation areas; At last,make a point of this article, the request scope of“compensating for damage” should include preventive measures costs;investigation and assessment, litigation costs;the transition period losses costs;environmental non-use value fees.Apart the introduction,this paper includes four chapters.The first part focuses on the basic theory of“compensating for damage”. First, mainly sort out the methods of penalty for damages in the traditional civil law: "restitution" and "monetary compensation". "Restitution" and "monetary compensation" correspond to "complete interest" and "value interest" in two different value goals and system objects. The claims of "Restitution" is intended to preserve the integrity of the interests state of victim, while the "monetary compensation" does not focus on reproducing the creditor original living conditions, but money to fill based on the value "difference" or special provisions according to economy, so as to achieve some compensation effect, therefore it mostly points to "value interest". Second, it mainly introduces the research of the " compensating for damage " on our law, for now, the definition of the concept of " compensating for damage " still has different views, The main reason of this difference is that, our civil law doctrine does not distinguish "complete interest" and "value interest", thus blurring the different the target value and system object behind the value interests and the integrity interests intended to be achieved. Between this, final, we recommend a strict distinction between " compensating for damage ", "restitution", "restitution fees" and other concepts, removal the incomplete lists of the various specific methods of "restitution" in existing law. And maintain the same connotation between the " compensating for damage " in our law and the "monetary compensation" in civil law countries in order to achieve its "value interest" as the goal. The second part confirms that the application premise " compensating for damage "-- "environmental damage". "Environmental damage" is closely related to the concept of " compensating for damage " scope, the different perceptions of "Environmental damage" will also lead to the different definitions of " compensating for damage " scope, therefore, to determine the scope of " compensating for damage ", we should firstly determine the concept of "environmental damage". Learning from the doctrinal definitions of "environmental damage" and related concepts made by domestic and foreign legal scholars, Environmental damage, should refer to the ecological environment damage itself, and it is that people develop and use the environment which is beyond the capacity of the environment, resulting environment itself that does not involve the private equity has a significant adverse change in the fact. Which not only includes the economic value of the damage, but also aesthetic, ecological, cultural and other multi-value damage.The third part demonstrates the application space of " compensating for damage " in the field of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation. Currently, practice material and experience accumulated in our judicial practice does not completely express the whole picture and trends of the development in environmental civil public interest litigation, therefore it should be more from the theoretical level to explore the necessity and feasibility of the application of this very civil liability-- " compensating for damage ". " compensating for damage " is not unique to the concept of private law, yet also not the alternative execution method of "restitution", most importantly, " compensating for damage " has its indispensable existence value in the field of environmental public interest litigation. Therefore, its application in the field of environmental public interest litigation is indeed necessary.The fourth part demonstrates the specific scope of the " compensating for damage " request right. According to "complete compensation" principle, the request scope of " compensating for damage " should not only include the derogation of the ecological environment itself, and also include the impairment of related to welfare benefits occurred after the environmental damage caused by. Based on this premise understanding, The request scope of " compensating for damage " should include the preventive measures costs;investigation and assessment, litigation costs;the transition period losses costs;environmental non-use value fees. In terms of damage assessment, we should draw on national legislation and judicial practice, on the basis of <environmental damage appraisal method recommended>, forming a scientific assessment of environmental damage metering system; and gradually improve the socialization mechanisms of the environmental damage liability insurance to guarantee legal effect of the environmental damage compensation system.