On The Distribution Of Burden Of Causality Proof In Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation

Environmental civil public interest litigation system,as a special system to protect environmental public interests,the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China in 2012 hereinafter referred to as the Civil Litigation Law.For the first time,the Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China hereinafter referred to as the Environmental Protetion Law was established in the form of legislation.Established environmental groups sued the main body status.the Supreme People’s Court Hearing environmental civil public interest litigation cases to explain some issues of applicable law and the Supreme People’s Court on some issues of environmental tort liability disputes applicable law interpretation hereinafter referred to as "the judicial interpretation of public environmental welfare" and the environment infringement judicial interpretation".In environmental civil public interest litigation cases,and the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code)was formally implemented in January 2021.The rules of burden of proof inversion in environmental private interest litigation are stipulated.Through the study of law and judicial explanation.turned out to be no laws of civil environmental public interest litigation causality rules on burden of proof allocation problems,the environment infringement judicial interpretation provisions of the civil environmental public interest litigation and private interest litigation environment reflects the causality presumption rules of shadow.it reflects the lack of legislation in legislation and judicial explanation from the dilferent position.On the other hand,in judicial practice.judges have different application of the burden of proof of causality in environmental civil public interest litigation.which leads to different judgments in the same case and affects the development of judicial credibility and environmental civil public interest litigation system.Since its establishment,many scholars have studied the burden of proof of causality in environmental civil public interest litigation and published various theories and viewpoints.However.there are still different opinions in the academic circle,which affects the operation of judicial practice.In conclusion,no unified position has been formed on this issue in the legislative.judicial or academic circles.By comparing environmental civil public interest litigation and environmental civil private interest litigation,there are essential differences between the two in terms of litigation purpose,litigalion subject,nature,etc,and there are many defects in the inversion of the burden of proof,and the rule of presumption of causality is legitimate.which leads to the construction of a special environmental civil public interest litigation causal relationship to prove the burden of proof is necessary.China can learn from some foreign countries to construct a presumption of causality rules,in the litigation by the plaintiff to prove the environmental pollution behavior,ecological damage behavior,damage results and the correlation between the behavior and the result;then by the judge to review and presumed,as long as the judge to form a "roughly possible" psychological evidence,then the presumption of causality is established.Finally,the defendant proves that there is no causal relationship,and the defendant can submit counter-evidence against the basic facts,and can also prove that several explanations provided for in Article 7 of the Judicial Interpretation on Environmental Civil Public interest Litigation do not establish causality.Only by promulgating and implementing judicial interpretations or amending existing laws and judicial interpretations to construct the rules for the presumption of causation of environmental civil public interest litigation in China,and clarifying the connotation of "relevance" and its proof standards,can we improve China’s environmental civil public interest litigation system.