Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:44:08.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China: A Critical Examination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2021

Lei Xie Open the ORCID record for Lei Xie [Opens in a new window]  and
Lu Xu Open the ORCID record for Lu Xu [Opens in a new window]
Lei Xie
Affiliation:
Institute of Governance, School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University (China). Email: [email protected].
Lu Xu
Affiliation:
Lancaster University Law School (United Kingdom). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) emerged in China over the last decade amidst the growing focus on environmental issues and the increasing political need to bring greater public participation to the area. This article examines the current practice of EPIL by NGOs in order to understand the potential flaws and deficiencies of NGO participation in this relatively new field of environmental litigation. The article sets out by exploring EPIL as a legal pathway for the public to become involved in China's environmental governance. It then analyzes the legal provision of environmental litigation in China before critically examining several instances of EPIL initiated by NGOs between 2015 and 2019. The article finds that NGOs show weaknesses in their current EPIL practice, including in case selection and litigation risk assessment, but are willing to test and potentially expand the scope of EPIL into new areas of environmental protection such as noise pollution and renewable energy. It concludes that these weaknesses and strengths of NGO involvement in EPIL reflect the constantly evolving landscape of environmental governance and environmental litigation in China.

Keywords

Public participationPublic interest litigationEnvironmental litigationChinese courtsPollutionWildlife protection
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , November 2021 , pp. 441 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author acknowledges the invaluable support of the Qilu Scholar Grant provided by Shandong University (ref: 61060089963026) in the completion of this study.

The authors are grateful to the three anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions. Any error or omission remains that of the authors. The authors contributed equally and are listed in alphabetical order.

References

1 In this context Chinese law formally uses the term ‘social organization’ rather than ‘non-governmental organization (NGO)’. For the sake of its more prevalent usage in English this article prefers the label ‘NGO’, except when directly referring to the text or content of Chinese law.

2 Stern, R., ‘From Dispute to Decision: Suing Polluters in China’ (2011) 206 China Quarterly, pp. 294–312, at 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tang, S.Y., Tang, C.P. & Lo, C., ‘Public Participation and Environmental Impact Assessment in Mainland China and Taiwan: Political Foundations of Environmental Management’ (2005) 41(1) Journal of Development Studies, pp. 1–32, at 6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ren, X. & Liu, L., ‘Building Consensus: Support Structure and the Frames of Environmental Legal Mobilization in China’ (2019) 29(121) Journal of Contemporary China, pp. 109–24, at 112CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Gao, Q., ‘Public Interest Litigation in China: Panacea or Placebo for Environmental Protection’ (2018) 16(4) China: An International Journal, pp. 47–75, at 53Google Scholar.

5 Chang, T. Zhai & Y.C., ‘Standing of Environmental Public-Interest Litigants in China: Evolution, Obstacles and Solutions’ (2018) 30(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 369–97, at 389Google Scholar.

6 Dumas, M., ‘Taking the Law to Court: Citizen Suits and the Legislative Process’ (2017) 61(4) American Journal of Political Science, pp. 944–57, at 944CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Krämer, L., ‘Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Matters before European Courts’ (1996) 8(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 1–18, at 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Faure, M. & Raja, A.V., ‘Effectiveness of Environmental Public Interest Litigation in India: Determining the Key Variables’ (2010) 21(2) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 239–94, at 293Google Scholar.

9 Brinks, D.M. & Gauri, V., Courting Social Justice: Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Developing World (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 944Google Scholar.

10 Faure & Raja, n. 8 above, pp. 288–91.

11 林燕梅、成功 Y. Lin & G. Cheng, ‘美国公益诉讼制度下水污染案例分析’ [‘An Analysis of Water Pollution Cases under the American Public Interest Litigation System’] (2011) 6(1) The Environmental Rule of Law, pp. 90–103, at 100 (a water pollution case study in the public interest litigation system of the United States) (in Chinese).

12 Dumas, n. 6 above, p. 945.

13 Prasai, S. & Surie, M.D., ‘Water and Climate Data in the Ganges Basin: Assessing Access to Information Regimes and Implications for Cooperation on Transboundary Rivers’ (2015) 8(2) Water Alternatives, pp. 20–35, at 24–9Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. 24.

15 Kumar, M. & Pandit, C., ‘India's Water Management Debate: Is the “Civil Society” Making It Everlasting?’ (2018) 34(1) International Journal of Water Resources Development, pp. 28–41, at 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pandit, C., ‘Environmental over Enthusiasm’ (2014) 30(1) International Journal of Water Resources Development, pp. 110–20, at 112–13, 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Xie, L., Environmental Activism in China (Routledge, 2009), pp. 3–19Google Scholar; Hsu, J., Hasmath, C. Hsu & R., ‘NGO Strategies in an Authoritarian Context, and Their Implications for Citizenship: The Case of the People's Republic of China’ (2017) 28 Voluntas, pp. 1157–79, at 1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Ren & Liu, n. 3 above, p. 113; Stern, n. 2 above, p. 307.

18 Gao, n. 4 above, p. 54.

19 Cao, M. & Wang, F., ‘Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China’ (2011) 19(2) Asia Pacific Law Review, pp. 217–35, at 225–27Google Scholar; Zhang, R. & Mayer, B., ‘Public Interest Environmental Litigation in China’ (2017) 1(2) Chinese Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 202–28, at 211–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), Annex I, available at: https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/Agenda%2021.pdf.

21 State Council of the People's Republic of China (PRC), ‘China's Agenda 21: White Paper on China's Population, Environment and Development in the 21st Century’ (1994); an abstract in English is available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12288811.

22 郭武 W. Guo, ‘论中国第二代环境法的形成和发展趋势’ [‘On the Formation and Development Trend of China's Second Generation Environmental Law’] (2017) (1) ZUEL Law Journal pp. 85–95, at 90 (in Chinese).

23 He, G., Lu, Y. & Mol, A., ‘Changes and Challenges: China's Environmental Management in Transition’ (2012) 23(3) Environmental Development, pp. 25–38, at 33–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Zhang, L., Mol, P.J. & Yang, S., ‘Environmental Information Disclosure in China: In the Era of Informatization and Big Data’ (2017) 12(1) Frontiers of Law in China, pp. 57–75, at 59Google Scholar.

25 B. Zhang et al., ‘Policy Interactions and Underperforming Emission Trading Markets in China’ (2013) 47(13) Environmental Science & Technology, pp. 7077–84, at 7077–78.

26 Newig, J. & Fritsch, O., ‘Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multi-Level – and Effective?’ (2009) 19(3) Environmental Policy and Governance, pp. 197–214, at 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 ‘Air Pollution More than Half of Environmental Complaints in China’, China Daily, 4 May 2017, available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-05/04/content_29208110.htm.

28 Wang, A., ‘Explaining Environmental Information Disclosure in China’ (2018) 44(4) Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 865–924, at 875–77Google Scholar.

29 Ren & Liu, n. 3 above, p. 118.

30 Wang, n. 28 above, p. 880.

31 He, B. & Warren, M., ‘Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development’ (2011) 9(2) Perspectives on Politics, pp. 269–89, at 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Almen, O., ‘Participatory Innovations under Authoritarianism: Accountability and Responsiveness in Hangzhou's Social Assessment of Government Performance’ (2018) 27(110) Journal of Contemporary China, pp. 165–79, at 167–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; B.J. Dickson et al., ‘Public Goods and Regime Support in Urban China’ (2016) 228 China Quarterly, pp. 859–80, at 860; Zhu, X. & Wu, K., ‘Public Participation in China's Environmental Lawmaking: In Pursuit of Better Environmental Democracy’ (2017) 29(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 389–416, at 416CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Guo, n. 22 above, p. 93.

34 Order of the President of the PRC, No. 6, 24 Apr. 2014.

35 Art. 53 EPL.

36 First promulgated in 2002 and revised in 2016; this law is the foundation of the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment of Planning.

37 Order of the State Council, No. 559, 17 Aug. 2009.

38 Zhu & Wu, n. 32 above, p. 390.

39 Zhang, L., He, G. & Mol, A., ‘China's New Environmental Protection Law: A Game Changer?’ (2015) 13(1) Environmental Development, pp. 1–3, at 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zhang, L. et al. , ‘Power Politics in the Revision of China's Environmental Protection Law (2013) 22(6) Environmental Politics, pp. 1029–35, at 1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Art. 56 EPL.

41 M.L. Tseng et al., ‘Sustainable Consumption and Production for Asia: Sustainability through Green Design and Practice’ (2013) 40 Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 1–5, at 3.

42 Yan, X. & Ge, X., ‘Participatory Policy Making under Authoritarianism: The Pathways of Local Budgetary Reform in the People's Republic of China’ (2015) 44(2) Policy and Politics, pp. 215–34, at 218Google Scholar.

43 J. Liu, ‘China's Procuratorate in Environmental Civil Enforcement: Practice, Challenges and Implications for China's Environmental Governance’ (2011) 13 Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 41–66, at 64; Liu, J., ‘Environmental Justice with Chinese Characteristics: Recent Developments in Using Environmental Public Interest Litigation to Strengthen Access to Environmental Justice’ (2015) 7(2) Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University Law Review, pp. 229–60, at 260Google Scholar.

44 Wang, A. & Gao, J., ‘Environmental Courts and the Development of Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China’ (2010) 3(1) Journal of Court Innovation, pp. 37–50, at 42–44Google Scholar; Ren & Liu, n. 3 above, p. 114.

45 X. Li et al., ‘Authoritarian Environmentalism and Environmental Policy Implementation in China’ (2019) 145 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, pp. 86–93, at 87; Zhu, X. et al. , ‘Regional Restrictions on Environmental Impact Assessment Approval in China: The Legitimacy of Environmental Authoritarianism’ (2015) 92 Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 100–8, at 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 K. Shin, ‘Neither Centre Nor Local: Community-Driven Experimentalist Governance in China (2017) 231 China Quarterly, pp. 607–33, at 612.

47 Tang, Tang & Lo, n. 2 above, p. 32.

48 Order of the President of the PRC, No. 59, 31 Aug. 2012 (Civil Procedural Law of the PRC).

49 Civil Procedural Law of the PRC, Art. 55.

50 N. 34 above.

51 Art. 58 EPL.

52 ‘Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Conduct of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigations’, Interpretation 2015/No. 1 of the Supreme People's Court.

53 Available in Chinese on the National People's Congress website at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/xinwen/2015-07/01/content_1940395.htm.

54 Available in Chinese on the Supreme People's Procuratorate website at: https://www.spp.gov.cn/zdgz/201601/t20160106_110439.shtml.

55 Available in Chinese on the Supreme People's Court website at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-37422.html.

56 Civil Procedural Law of the PRC, Art. 55(2); Administrative Procedural Law of the PRC, Art. 25(4).

57 Available in Chinese on the State Council website at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2015-12/03/content_5019585.htm.

58 ‘Reform Plan of the Ecological Environmental Damage Compensation System’, available in Chinese on the State Council website at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2017-12/17/content_5247952.htm.

59 Reform Plan, ibid., Part 4, Section 3.

60 Interpretation 2019/No. 8 of the Supreme People's Court, Art. 1.

61 The Tort Liability part of the Civil Code, enacted by the National People's Congress in May 2020 to commence on 1 January 2021, contains provisions on liabilities arising from environmental pollution and ecological damage but makes no specific reference to EEDC principles or procedures.

62 Supreme People's Court website, available at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-162292.html (in Chinese). Some cases were decided explicitly on the basis of the aforementioned Reform Plan: e.g., 山东省环境保护厅 v. 山东金诚重油化工有限公司, (2017)鲁01民初1467号, 济南市中级人民法院 (21 Dec. 2018); 黄强勇 v. 龙海市水利局, (2018)闽06民终1109号, 漳州市中级人民法院 (25 May 2018).

63 A typical scenario for bringing civil EPIL attached to a criminal prosecution is where the procuratorate is already bringing a prosecution for crimes of damaging the environment (commonly under Art. 338 of the Criminal Law of the PRC) and putting forward evidence of environmental damage in terms of its scale and the likely costs of remedial work. The criminal prosecution will then proceed to establish criminal liability, while the civil EPIL case, tried and decided by the same court in a single process, will establish civil liability.

64 Supreme People's Court, Press Conference, 2 Mar. 2019, full script in Chinese available at: https://www.chinacourt.org/chat/fulltext/listId/51171/template/courtfbh20190302.shtml.

65 Ibid.

66 Civil Procedural Law of the PRC, Art. 55(2).

67 张锋 F. Zhang, ‘检察环境公益诉讼之诉前程序研究’ [‘Research into the Pre-trial Procedure of Prosecutorial Environmental Public Interest Litigation’] (2018/11) Political Science and Law 151.

68 E.g. 中华环保联合会 v. 朱宏根, (2018) 苏05民初1192号, 苏州市中级人民法院 (26 Dec. 2019).

69 张军 J. Zhang, ‘最高人民检察院关于开展公益诉讼检察工作情况的报告’ [‘Report by the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Undertaking Procuratorial Work for Public Interest Litigation’, 23 Oct. 2019, available in Chinese at: https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/tt/201910/t20191024_435925.shtml.

70 The latest available number count is 298 cases by the end of June 2019: Supreme People's Court, Press Conference, 30 July 2019, available at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-173942.html (in Chinese).

71 葛枫 F. Ge et al., ‘2016年度环境公益诉讼观察报告’ [‘Observation Report on Environmental Public Interest Litigation in the Year 2016’], in 李楯 D. Li (ed.), 环境公益诉讼观察报告 [Review of Public Interest Litigation in Environmental Protection 2016] (Law Press China, 2017), pp. 335–51, at 337.

72 Ibid., p. 335; 黄娜、杜家明 N. Huang & J. Du, ‘社会组织参与环境公益诉讼的优化路径’ [‘Optimized Path for Social Organization Participating in Environmental Public Interest Litigation’] (2018) 36(9) Hebei Law Science, pp. 191–200, at 193 (in Chinese).

73 Section 5.3 below.

74 Civil Procedural Law of the PRC, Art. 55 (2).

75 Interpretation 2019/No. 8 of the Supreme People's Court, Art. 17.

76 CCTV News, 6 Sept. 2014, available at: http://m.news.cntv.cn/2014/09/06/ARTI1410011258266870.shtml (in Chinese).

77 By December 2014 the State Council had established a dedicated ‘supervision and investigation group’ to oversee the handling of the incident and the clean-up efforts to follow. The then Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) undertook most of the work, imposed various sanctions on the perpetrator companies within its administrative powers, and put in place plans for restoration of the environment by February 2015. With most of the clean-up and restoration work successfully implemented by September 2015, the MEP removed the ‘special supervision status’ it had imposed on the restoration project in November 2015.

78 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 宁夏瑞泰科技股份有限公司, (2015) 卫民公立字第6号, 宁夏回族自治区中卫市中级人民法院 (19 Aug. 2015); (2015) 宁民公立终字第6号, 宁夏回族自治区高级人民法院 (6 Nov. 2015).

79 As required by the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Conduct of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigations, Art. 4.

80 Art. 55 EPL.

81 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 宁夏瑞泰科技股份有限公司, (2016) 最高法民再47号, 最高人民法院 (28 Jan. 2016).

82 Guiding Case No. 75, English translation by Stanford Law School, China Guiding Cases Project, available at: http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-75. ‘Guiding cases’ are selected by the Supreme People's Court to serve as guidance, rather than binding authorities, for future decisions by all courts. For a more detailed explanation of this system see, e.g., Lu Xu, ‘The Changing Perspectives of Chinese Law: Socialist Rule of Law, Emerging Case Law and the Belt and Road Initiative’ (2019) 5(2) Chinese Journal of Global Governance, pp. 153–75, at 162.

83 Respective liabilities range from RMB 1.97 million to 219 million for each defendant: 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 宁夏中卫市大龙化工有限公司, (2016) 宁05民初16号, 宁夏回族自治区中卫市中级人民法院 (28 July 2017); 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 宁夏中卫市美利源水利有限公司, (2016) 宁05民初12号, 宁夏回族自治区中卫市中级人民法院 (28 July 2017).

84 The contribution varied from RMB 100,000 to 1.43 million for each company: 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 宁夏中卫市大龙化工有限公司, (2016) 宁05民初16号, 宁夏回族自治区中卫市中级人民法院 (28 July 2017); 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 宁夏明盛染化有限公司, (2016) 宁05民初18号, 宁夏回族自治区中卫市中级人民法院 (28 July 2017).

85 徐以祥 Y. Xu, ‘论我国环境法律的体系化’ [‘On the Systematization of Chinese Environmental Laws’] (2019) 41(93) Modern Law Sciences, pp. 83–95, at 90–2 (in Chinese).

86 Announcement by Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court, 27 May 2019, available at: http://bj4zy.chinacourt.gov.cn/article/detail/2019/05/id/3965982.shtml (in Chinese).

87 Beijing Business Today, 18 Nov. 2014, available at: http://finance.people.com.cn/n/2014/1118/c1004-26043889.html (in Chinese).

88 The Paper, 18 Apr. 2016, available at: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1457900 (in Chinese).

89 北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所 v. 江苏常隆化工有限公司, (2016) 苏04民初214号, 江苏省常州市中级人民法院 (25 Jan. 2017).

90 北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所 v. 江苏常隆化工有限公司, (2017) 苏民终232号, 江苏省高级人民法院 (26 Dec. 2018).

91 CBCGDF website, 25 Jan. 2019, available at: http://www.cbcgdf.org/NewsShow/4857/7421.html (in Chinese).

92 Interpretation 2015/No. 1 of the Supreme People's Court, Art. 22.

93 肖建国、宋史超 J. Xiao & S. Song, ‘程序视角下的环境民事公益诉讼若干问题’ [‘Several Issues of Civil Environmental Public Interest Litigation from a Procedural Perspective’] in Li, n. 71 above, pp. 355–62, at 362.

94 Interpretation 2015/No. 1 of the Supreme People's Court, Art. 33.

95 The Beijing News, 25 Jan. 2019, available at: http://www.bjnews.com.cn/news/2019/01/25/542977.html (in Chinese).

96 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 山东金诚重油化工有限公司, (2016) 鲁01民初780号, 济南市中级人民法院 (27 Dec. 2018).

97 湘潭生态环境保护协会 v. 湘潭市金鑫矿业有限公司, (2018) 湘03民初196号, 湖南省湘潭市中级人民法院 (30 Sept. 2019). The court awarded RMB 10,000 in lawyers’ fees out of RMB 236,300 claimed (4.2%), despite finding the defendant liable for RMB 654 million for damage to the environment.

98 中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会 v. 浙江富邦集团有限公司, (2018) 浙民终1015号, 浙江省高级人民法院 (25 Apr. 2019).

99 北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所 v. 北京都市芳园房地产开发有限公司, (2015) 四中民初字第233号, 北京市第四中级人民法院 (24 Oct. 2018).

100 The Beijing News, 24 Sept. 2017, available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com//legal/2017-09/24/c_1121713836.htm (in Chinese).

101 CEPF website, available at: http://www.cepf.org.cn/jjhdt/201903/t20190314_695880.htm (in Chinese).

102 Ibid.

103 People's Court Daily, 25 June 2019, available at: http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2019-06/25/content_156898.htm (in Chinese).

104 北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所 v. 北京环宇宝龙汽车销售服务有限责任公司, (2018) 京04民初48号, 北京市第四中级人民法院 (16 Aug. 2018); 北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所 v. 北京中顺天达贸易有限公司, (2018) 京04民初49号, 北京市第四中级人民法院 (16 Aug. 2018).

105 Wang, n. 28 above, p. 901.

106 Interpretation 2015/No. 1 of the Supreme People's Court, Art. 17.

107 Peel, J. & Osofsky, H., Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 28–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 The Beijing News, 7 May 2019, available at http://www.xinhuanet.com/legal/2019-05/07/c_1124459053.htm (in Chinese).

109 Zhai & Chang, n. 5 above, p. 384.

110 CBCGDF website, 14 June 2019, available at: http://www.cbcgdf.org/NewsShow/4857/8920.html (in Chinese).

111 北京市朝阳区自然之友环境研究所 v. 国网甘肃省电力公司, (2018) 甘民终679号, 甘肃省高级人民法院 (28 Dec. 2018).

112 Renewable Energy Law of the PRC, Art. 14.

113 Ashley, J. & He, P., ‘Opening One Eye and Closing the Other: The Legal and Regulatory Environment for “Grassroots” NGOs in China Today’ (2008) 26(1) Boston University International Law Journal, pp. 26–96, at 41Google Scholar.

114 Zhu, J., Ye, S. & Liu, Y., ‘Legitimacy, Board Involvement, and Resource Competiveness: Drivers of NGO Revenue Diversification’ (2018) 29 Voluntas, pp. 1176–89, at 1176–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Ren & Liu, n. 3 above, p. 118.

116 Ibid., p. 118.

117 Percival, R. & Zhao, H., ‘The Role of Civil Society in Environmental Governance in the United States and China’ (2014) 24 Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, pp. 142–83, at 146–53Google Scholar.