Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:29:12.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rule of Climate Policy: How Do Chinese Judges Contribute to Climate Governance without Climate Law?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2021

Mingzhe Zhu Open the ORCID record for Mingzhe Zhu [Opens in a new window]
Mingzhe Zhu*
Affiliation:
College of Comparative Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing (China). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

China's climate governance is distinguished by the contrast between an abundance of policies on climate change and the lack of legally binding laws. This article argues that Chinese courts bridge this difference, which fosters a ‘rule of climate policy’ rather than a strict rule of law. The effective authority of Chinese climate policy is made possible in practice both by provisions of the Chinese Constitution and the prevailing use of legal reasoning. China's constitutional design of ‘ecological civilization’ delegates the duty and the power of managing climate change issues to the executive branch of its government. Most Chinese documents on climate governance have no binding legal force, which means, according to positive law, that they cannot serve as legal grounds for judicial decisions. Chinese judges, in deciding climate-related disputes, must combine legal provisions and non-binding materials to achieve regulatory goals. They use non-legal materials to support statutory or contractual interpretations and determine the existence or limits of rights, which alters the meaning and scope of existing legal terms and principles. This rule of climate policy is possible in the courtroom because judges justify public policy considerations with arguments of principle that are substantiated in various non-binding climate plans.

Keywords

Climate change litigationEnvironmental justiceLegal reasoningPublic policy considerations
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 119 - 139
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 expresses his gratitude to Sandrine Maljean-Dubois and Tomaso Ferrando for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this article and related discussions, to TEL reviewers for their valuable comments, and to Lingyu Wang for her research assistance. This research is funded by the Research Foundation – Flanders (File number: 76473).

References

1 C.B. Field et al., ‘Technical Summary’, in IPCC (C.B. Field et al. (eds)), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 35–94, at 51.

2 Gilley, B., ‘Authoritarian Environmentalism and China's Response to Climate Change’ (2012) 21(2) Environmental Politics, pp. 287–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar. ‘Government’ in this article generally refers to the executive branch.

3 A.L. Wang, ‘Climate Change Policy and Law in China’, in K. Gray, T. Richard & C. Carlarne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 636–69.

4 Ibid., p. 641. See also He, X., ‘Legal and Policy Pathways of Climate Change Adaptation: Comparative Analysis of the Adaptation Practices in the United States, Australia and China’ (2018) 7(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 347–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 J. Lin, ‘Climate Governance in China: Using the “Iron Hand”’, in B.J. Richardson (ed.), Local Climate Change Law: Environmental Regulation in Cities and Other Localities (Edward Elgar, 2012), pp. 300–24.

6 He, n. 4 above; Wang, n. 3 above.

7 He, n. 4 above.

8 See Ministry of Ecology & Environment, ‘Enhanced Actions on Climate Change: China's Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’, 30 June 2015, available at: http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2015-06/30/content_35950951.htm.

9 Setzer, J. & Benjamin, L., ‘Climate Litigation in the Global South: Constraints and Innovations’ (2020) 9(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peel, J. & Lin, J., ‘Transnational Climate Litigation: The Contribution of the Global South’ (2019) 113(4) American Journal of International Law, pp. 679–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCormick, S. et al. , ‘Strategies in and Outcomes of Climate Change Litigation in the United States’ (2018) 8(9) Nature Climate Change, pp. 829–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Mayer, B., ‘Interpreting States’ General Obligations on Climate Change Mitigation: A Methodological Review’ (2019) 28(2) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, pp. 107–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stein, E. & Castermans, A., ‘Urgenda v. The State of the Netherlands: The “Reflex Effect” – Climate Change, Human Rights, and the Expanding Definitions of the Duty of Care’ (2017) 13(2) McGill Journal of Sustainable Development Law, pp. 303–24Google Scholar.

11 Markell, D.L. & Ruhl, J.B., ‘An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual?’ (2011) 64(1) Florida Law Review, pp. 15–86Google Scholar, at 27.

12 J. Peel & H. Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 8.

13 Setzer & Benjamin, n. 9 above, p. 87.

14 Peel & Osofsky, n. 12 above, p. 3.

15 See 28 Dec. 2018, 自然之友环境研究所诉国家电网甘肃公司案，甘肃省高级人民法院 (2018) 甘民终 679 号民事裁定书。[The Friends of Nature Institute v. Gansu State Grid], (2018) Decision No. 679, High Court of Gansu Province (Gansu State Grid). We will discuss this case in Section 2.2.

16 Zhao, Y., Lyu, S. & Wang, Z., ‘Prospects for Climate Change Litigation in China’ (2019) 8(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 349–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 ‘Co-benefit’ is also the key term that allows scholars to discuss judicial climate governance through air pollution cases in China; see 赵悦：《气候变化诉讼在中国的路径探究 – 基于 41 个大气污染公益诉讼案件的实证分析》，《山东大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2019 年第 6 期，第 26–35 页 [Zhao, Y., ‘Potential Pathways for Climate Change Litigation in China: Empirical Analysis of 41 Public Interest Litigation Cases Involving Air Pollution’ (2019) 69(6) Journal of Shandong University, pp. 26–35Google Scholar].

18 Wang, B. & Zhou, Q., ‘Climate Change in the Chinese Mind: An Overview of Public Perceptions at Macro and Micro Levels’ (2020) 11(3) WIREs Climate Change online articles, pp. e639–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.639; Wang, B., Shen, Y. & Jin, Y., ‘Measurement of Public Awareness of Climate Change in China: Based on a National Survey with 4,025 Samples’ (2017) 15(4) Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, pp. 285–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 The Supreme People's Court (SPC) expresses its determination to contribute to climate governance in its annual report on environmental justice; see 最高人民法院：《中国环境资源审判（2019）》[People's Supreme Court of China, ‘White Paper on Environmental Justice’ (2019)], available at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-228341.html. Also, the only periodical administered directly by the Supreme Court has committed to introduce climate change law and cases in foreign jurisdiction; see “编者按”，《人民法院报》 2019 年 12 月 20 日第 8 版 [‘Editorial’, Daily of People's Court, 20 Dec. 2019], available at: http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2019-12/20/node_9.htm.

20 Since Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 US 497 (2007), environmental law scholarship in China has included some articles on climate change litigation. Most of them concern specific cases in other jurisdictions and focus mainly on admissibility and stance; see 李艳芳：《从“马萨诸塞州等诉环保局”看美国环境法的发展》，《中国人民大学学报》 2007 年第 6 期，第 106–114 页 [Li, Y., ‘New Proceedings of US Environmental Law: A Case Study of the Environmental Law from the Case of State of Massachusetts et al vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al’ (2007) 21(6) Journal of Renmin University of China, pp. 106–14Google Scholar]; 马存利：《全球变暖下的环境诉讼原告资格分析 – 以马萨诸塞州诉联邦环保署案出发》，《中外法学》 2008 年第 4 期，第 630–9 页 [Ma, C., ‘Stance of the Plaintiff in the Era of Global Warming: Case Analysis of Massachusetts vs. EPA’ (2008) 30(4) Pekin University Law Journal, pp. 630–9Google Scholar]; 王燕：《“利害关系”的嬗变：美国温室气体排放诉讼原告资格的发展趋势》，《江苏社会科学》2015 年第 1 期 [Wang, Y., ‘Currents of Developments concerning the Stance of the Plaintiff in Emission of GHGs: Litigation in the US’ (2015) 36(1) Jiangsu Social Science, pp. 157–65Google Scholar]. Only very recently have scholars started to discuss the pathways for climate change litigation in China; see, e.g., Zhao, n. 17 above. Current literature in Chinese contains scant discussion of public policy considerations, the use of scientific evidence, choice of strategies, or equity. Anecdotally, the author has submitted an article on the co-production of scientific and judicial authority to some Chinese journals and has met only rejection because ‘it is not a law article’.

21 Holmes, O., ‘The Path of the Law’ (1897) 10(8) Harvard Law Review, pp. 457–78,Google Scholar at 467.

22 Durrant, N., ‘Tortious Liability for Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Climate Change, Causation and Public Policy Considerations’ (2007) 7(2) Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal, pp. 403–24Google Scholar.

23 See Ganguly, G., Setzer, J. & Heyvaert, V., ‘If at First You Don't Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change’ (2018) 38(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 841–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 See Ghodoosi, F., ‘The Concept of Public Policy in Law: Revisiting the Role of the Public Policy Doctrine in the Enforcement of Private Legal Arrangements’ (2015) 94(3) Nebraska Law Review, pp. 685–736Google Scholar.

25 See Biber, E., ‘Law in the Anthropocene Epoch’ (2017) 106(1) The Georgetown Law Journal, pp. 1–68Google Scholar.

26 The Chinese version of the Constitution uses the term ‘生态文明’ [shengtai wenming] in the Preamble, and ‘生态文明建设’ [shengtai wenming jianshe] in Art. 89(6). The literal translations of these terms are ‘ecological civilization’ and ‘the implementation of ecological civilization’, respectively. However, the English translation approved by the National People's Congress does not use ‘ecological civilization’. Rather, it uses ‘ecological advancement’ in the Preamble and ‘ecological conservation’ in Art. 89(6). We prefer the term ‘ecological civilization’, not only because it is closer to the constitutional text in Chinese, but also because it has become familiar in the fields of both environmental law and China studies. The English translation of the Constitution is available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/constitution2019/201911/1f65146fb6104dd3a2793875d19b5b29.shtml.

27 Art. 9 provides that all natural resources are owned by the state, except for those owned by collectives as prescribed by law. Art. 10(5) requires the use of land to be ‘appropriate’. Art. 26 provides the state's responsibility for environmental protection. See 张翔：《环境宪法的新发展及其规范阐释》，《法学家》 2018 年第 3 期，第 90–97 页 [Zhang, X., ‘New Development of Environmental Constitution and Its Normative Value’ (2018) 33(3) Jurist, pp. 90–7Google Scholar]

28 Ibid.

29 《国务院关于成立国家应对气候变化及节能减排工作领导小组的通知》, 国发〔2007〕18号 [Notice of the State Council on the Establishment of the National Leading Group on Addressing Climate Change], 12 June 2007, Guo Fa (2007) No. 18.

30 Ibid.

31 For a detailed review of the law, see Schuman, S. & Lin, A., ‘China's Renewable Energy Law and Its Impact on Renewable Power in China: Progress, Challenges and Recommendations for Improving Implementation’ (2012) 51 Energy Policy, pp. 89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 28 Aug. 2017, 云南盈鼎生物能源股份有限公司、中国石化销售有限公司云南石油分公司拒绝交易纠纷二审民事判决书，云南省高级人民法院民事判决书 (2017) 云民终 122 号 [Yingding Biomass Ltd v. Sinopec Yunnan Ltd] (2017) No. 122, High Court of Yunnan Province.

33 Gansu State Grid, n. 15 above.

34 See 最高人民法院：《中国环境资源审判 (2019) 》 [People's Supreme Court of China, White Paper on Environmental Justice (2019)], 8 May 2020, available at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-228341.html.

35 Art. 1234 of the Civil Code (2021) stipulates that where the remediable ecological degradation is caused by a violation of the national provisions but no personal harm is identifiable, the state or other organizations specified by law can demand that the responsible person proceeds with the remediation in due course. If the court decides that this provision has retrospective binding force and that the duty of 100% purchasing entails the duty of 100% connecting, it can hold the grid company responsible.

36 法释 (2009) 14 号《最高人民法院关于裁判文书引用法律、法规等规范性法律文件的规定》 [Supreme Court, Regulation on the Citation of Law, Decrees and other Normative Documents in Judgments], 4 Nov. 2009, Fa Shi No. 14 (2009), available at: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/xinwen/fztd/sfjs/2009-11/04/content_1525975.htm (SPC Citation Regulation).

37 Analysis of the measures of Shanxi and Qinghai; see He, n. 4 above, p. 354.

38 A case that draws attention from many scholars concerns the installation of solar water-heating facilities, and the judgment cites the Qinghai Green Building Action Implementation Plan; see the Yong Hui v. Qinghai Sanxing Real Estate Co. Ltd litigation at nn. 48 and 49 below and accompanying text.

39 Zhao, Lyu & Wang can select 177 civil action cases to analyze, while the same author can only identify 42 cases of public interest litigation: Zhao, Lyu & Wang, n. 16 above; Zhao, n. 17 above.

40 See M. Damaska, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 168–70.

41 The other books of the Civil Code were voted in 2020 and entered into force on 1 Jan. 2021. The new Civil Code further repeals the General Principles of Civil Law and other civil enactments.

42 于飞：《民法总则法源条款的缺失与补充》，《法学研究》 (2018) 年第 1 期，第 36–51 页 [Yu, F., ‘The Lack of Provision on the Sources of Law and Its Construction’ (2018) 40(1) Legal Studies, pp. 36–51Google Scholar].

43 李敏：《民法上国家政策之反思》，《法律科学》 (2015) 年第 3 期，第 96–111 页 [Li, M., ‘National Policy in Civil Law’ (2015) 33(3) Legal Science, pp. 96–111Google Scholar].

44 SPC Citation Regulation, n. 36 above, Art. 4. According to Art. 32 of the Law on the Organization of People's Courts, the SPC has the power to ‘explain the application of law and decree in judicial practice’. The SPC routinely publishes ‘judicial explanation’ to unify the interpretation of norms.

45 SPC Citation Regulation, n. 36 above, Art. 5.

46 29 Apr. 2011, 鲁潍（福建）盐业进出口有限公司苏州分公司诉江苏省苏州市盐务管理局行政判决书，江苏省苏州市金阊区人民法院 (2009) 金行初字第 0027 号 [Suzhou Branch of Luwei Co. Ltd v. Salt Administration of Suzhou Municipality], (2009) Case No. Jin Administrative 0027, Court of Jinlv District, Suzhou Municipality.

47 This case was discussed by Zhao, Lyu & Wang, n. 16 above, p. 359. We offer a critical account of the judgment.

48 26 Dec. 2016, 惠勇与青海三兴房地产开发有限公司商品房预售合同纠纷案一审民事判决书, 西宁市城东区人民法院 (2016) 青 0102 民初 2790 号民事判决 [Yong Hui v. Qinghai Sanxing Real Estate Co. Ltd] (2016) Case No. Qinghai 0102 Civ. 2790, Court of Dongcheng District, Xining Municipality.

49 10 Apr. 2017, 惠勇与青海三兴房地产开发有限公司商品房预售合同纠纷案二审民事判决书，西宁市中级人民法院 (2017) 青 01 民终 301 号 [Yong Hui v. Qinghai Sanxing Real Estate Co. Ltd] (2017) Case No. Qing 01 Civ. Appl. 301, Court of Xining Municipality.

50 29 Jan. 2019, 贾木杰与山东海亮房地产开发有限公司商品房预售合同纠纷一审民事判决书，济南市槐荫区人民法院 (2018) 鲁 0104 民初 6255 号 [Mujie Jia v. Shandong Hailiang Real Estate Co. Ltd] (2018) Case No. Lu 0104 civ. 6255, Court of Huaiyin District, Jinan Municipality.

51 13 Mar. 2017, 周福彬与湛江市麻章区大安汽车运输有限公司挂靠经营合同纠纷二审民事判决书，湛江市中级人民法院 (2017) 粤 08 民终 110 号 [Fubin Zhou v. Da'an Vehicle Transport Co. Ltd] (2017) Case No. Yue 08 Civ. Appl. 110, Court of Zhanjiang Municipality; 22 Sep. 2016, 陈海强与湛江市麻章区大安汽车运输有限公司挂靠经营合同纠纷一审民事判决书，湛江市麻章区人民法院 (2016) 粤 0811 民初 148 号 [Haiqiang Chen v. Da'an Vehicle Transport Ltd] (2016) Case No. Yue 0811 Civ. 148, Court of Zhanjiang Municipality; 20 Jun. 2019, 成都珂旭物流有限公司与陈娟挂靠经营合同纠纷一审民事判决书，四川省成都市新都区人民法院 (2019) 川 0114 民初 2394 号 [Kexu Logistics Co. Ltd v. Juan Chen] (2019) Case No. Chuan 0114, Civ. 2394, Court of Xindu District, Chengdu Municipality.

52 24 Oct. 2018, 李宗明、山东华森水泥集团有限公司买卖合同纠纷二审民事判决书，临沂市中级人民法院 (2018) 鲁 13 民终 6156 号 [Zongming Li v. Shandong Huasen Cement Co. Ltd] (2018) Case No. Lu 13 Civ. Appl. 6156, Court of Linyi Municipality.

53 J. Liu, ‘The Influence and Challenges of Climate Change Litigation in China: From NGOs' Perspective’, Conference presentation at the Duke University of Kunshan Conference, ‘International Seminar on Climate Litigation as a Tool of Governance’, Kunshan (China), 24 Oct. 2020, available at: https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/media/jinmei-liu-influence-and-challenges-climate-change-litigation-china-ngos-perspective.

54 Zhao, Lyu & Wang, n. 16 above, p. 360.

55 28 Dec. 2018, 承德县乾宇矿业有限责任公司与湖南省送变电工程公司等财产损害赔偿纠纷一审民事判决书，北京市西城区人民法院 (2016) 京 0102 民初 1894 号 [Qianyu Mining Co. Ltd v. Electricity Engineering Company of Hunan Province] (2016) Case No. Jing 0102 Civ. 1894, Court of Xicheng District, Beijing Municipality.

56 The anti-formalist attitude of China's judicial power and jurisprudence is well documented. What we argue here is not that China's judges are formalists, but that their style of decision writing is formalistic. For the anti-formalism of the Chinese court, see Seppänen, S., ‘Anti-formalism and the Preordained Birth of Chinese Jurisprudence’ (2018) 24(4) China Perspectives, pp. 31–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yu, X., ‘Legal Pragmatism in the People's Republic of China’ (1989) 3(1) Journal of Chinese Law, pp. 29–51Google Scholar.

57 《关于加强和规范裁判文书释法说理的指导意见》(2018) [The Supreme People's Court, Recommendations on Strengthening and Standardizing Arguments in Judicial Decisions], 12 June 2018, Fa No. 10, available at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-101552.html.

58 27 May 2019, 中节能科技投资有限公司与罗焱明等服务合同纠纷，北京市高级人民法院 (2019) 京民终 156 号民事判决书 [ Zhongjieneng Technology Investment Co. Ltd v. Mingyan Luo et al.] (2019) Case No. 156 Civ. Appl., High Court of Beijing Municipality.

59 最高人民法院： 2019 年度人民法院环境资源典型案例 [The Supreme People's Court, ‘Leading Cases of Environmental Justice in 2019’], available at: http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-228361.html.

60 See Sacco, R., ‘Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment I of II)’ (1991) 39(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 朱明哲：《生态原则与民法的当代转型》，《学术月刊》 2020 年第 6 期，第 84–97 页 [Zhu, M., ‘Sustainability and the Ecological Turn of Contemporary Civil Law’ (2020) 52(6) Academic Monthly, pp. 84–97Google Scholar].

62 Ibid.

63 Setzer & Benjamin, n. 9 above, p. 97.

64 Peel, J., ‘Issues in Climate Change Litigation’ (2011) 5(1) Carbon & Climate Law Review, pp. 15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 23.

65 Setzer & Benjamin, n. 9 above.

66 R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, 1978), p. 82.

67 Ibid., p. 84.

68 Ibid., p. 297.

69 Ibid., p. 294.

70 See Mayer, n. 10 above; S. Jasanoff, ‘A New Climate for Society’ (2010) 27(2–3) Theory, Culture & Society, pp. 233–53.

71 New York, NY (United States), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

72 中华人民共和国国务院新闻办公室:《中国 21 世纪人口、环境与发展》，2000 [State Council Information Office, ‘China's Agenda 21: White Paper on China's Population, Environment and Development in the 21st Century’], 19 Dec. 2000, available at: https://www.chinanews.com/2000-12-19/26/62210.html.

73 SPC policy is that the courts cannot make decisions on the ground of constitutional provisions. Literature in English on Chinese environmental law also largely ignores the Constitution.

74 Etty, T.F.M. & Heyvaert, V., et al. , ‘The End of a Decade and the Dawn of a Climate Resistance’ (2020) 9(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 P. Descola, Par-Delà Nature et Culture (Gallimard, 2005); F. Capra & U. Mattei, The Ecology of Law: Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community (Berret-Koehler, 2015); B. Latour, Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime (Polity, 2017); Biber, n. 25 above; J. Viñuales, The Organisation of the Anthropocene: In Our Hands? (Brill, 2018).