Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 13 - The Subordinate and Passive Position of Chinese Courts in Environmental Governance

  • from Part IV - China, Courts and Climate Change
  • Edited by Jolene Lin, National University of Singapore, Douglas A. Kysar, Yale University, Connecticut
  • Book:
    Climate Change Litigation in the Asia Pacific
    Published online:
    06 November 2020
    Print publication:
    29 October 2020, pp 365-393

  • Summary

    This chapter takes an in-depth understanding of the role played by Chinese courts in environmental governance over the past decades as a starting point to discussions about whether there exists a possibility of introducing climate change litigation in China. The chapter is therefore not focused on examining the feasibility of climate change litigation in Chinese courts, but on the role and inadequacies of courts in environmental and ecological protection. Such an exploration will undoubtedly be invaluable in determining the future possibility of Chinese courts as drivers of climate change litigation. The chapter adopts an empirical approach, drawing upon official resources and case analysis to highlight the dominance of administrative punishment and the inability of Chinese courts to provide victims with effective or meaningful relief, given that, in litigation, the number of criminal cases far eclipses civil ones. The chapter also seeks to argue that the judiciary does not have policy-making functions in China and environmental public interest litigation faces significant challenges.