您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律法规 »

浅析受贿罪的法律要件

李俊杰


　　如何理解“利用职务上的便利”，刑法界主要存在以下三种不同的观点：一曰利用职务上的便利受贿，包括利用本人职务范围内的权力，以及利用本人的职务和地位所形成的便利条件，通过第三者的职务行为为他人谋取利益而从中受贿；二曰利用职务上的便利，是指行为人利用自己职务范围内的方便条件，即利用自己职务上主管、经管、经手的便利条件，而不是指熟悉工作环境的条件，也不是指利用他人职务的方便或影响等条件；三曰利用职务上的便利，不仅包括利用自己职务范围内的权力，而且包括利用职务的影响而利用第三人的职务之便，甚至包括自己本身没有任何职务而纯粹利用第三者的职务之便。对此，我们认为，受贿罪是一种利用职务便利实施的腐败犯罪，收受他人财物或者其他利益只有与利用职务上的便利具有因果联系，才可以称之为腐败犯罪，否则，如果收受财物的行为和职务之间没有任何联系，何谈对职务行为的廉洁义务的背离呢？因此，既不能对利用职务上的便利作无限扩大的解释，也不能作过于狭隘的解释。基于此，我们主张，贿赂罪中的利用职务之便，当指行为人利用自己所担负职务的便利条件，而不能利用他人担负的职务的便利条件。利用他人职务自己收受贿赂，二者之间不具有因果联系，当然不背离其廉洁义务。显然，上述第一种、第三种观点将利用第三者的职务行为收受财物都作为受贿罪处理，过于宽泛地理解了受贿罪的利用职务便利。就此而言，第二种观点较为合适，但需要进一步明确和界定。在我们看来，利用职务之便，就是指利用本人职权或者地位形成的便利条件，既包括直接利用本人的职权，也包括利用本人的职权和地位所形成的便利条件。所谓利用本人职权，是指行为人直接利用本人职务、职权范围内主管、管理、经办钱物或者其他公共事务所形成的便利条件，这是权钱、权物、权利与利益交易的赤裸裸的最为典型的表现，具有权钱、权物交易的直接性；所谓利用本人职权或地位形成的便利条件，是指利用本人在职权或者地位上处于控制、操纵、干预他人或者处于优势地位所形成的便利条件。在这种情况下，尽管行为人未直接利用其的职权，但却利用了其职权和地位形成的优势和便利条件，如果没有其职权或者地位，权钱交易就不可能实现。与直接利用职权所进行的权钱、权物交易相比，这种权钱、权物、权利与利益的交易具有间接性。
　　需要说明，利用职务上的便利是仅指利用本人现在职务上的便利，抑或包括利用过去职务上的便利和利用将来职务上的便利？所谓利用过去职务上的便利，是指利用本人过去曾经担任但现在已不再担任的某种职务上的便利；所谓利用将来职务上的便利，是指利用本人现在还未担任但将要担任的某种职务上的便利。对于这两种情况下的收受他人财物的行为，外国刑法中有事前受贿与事后受贿罪的规定。[9]但我国刑法并未有这方面的规定，受贿罪中利用职务上的便利，当仅指利用现有职务上的便利，而不能包括过去或者将来职务上的便利。
　　如何理解“为他人谋取利益”及其在受贿罪中的地位，刑法界存在着“客观要件说”与“主观要件说”之对立。前者认为，为他人谋取利益是指受贿人为行贿人谋取某种非法的或合法的利益，这是行贿人与受贿人之间的一个交换条件，因此将其作为受贿罪的客观要件；后者则认为，为他人谋取利益，只是行贿人与受贿人之间货币与权力相交换的一种默契。就行贿人来说，是对受贿人的一种要求；就受贿人来说，是对行贿人的一种许诺或曰答应。因此，为他人谋取利益只是受贿人的一种心理态度，属于主观要件的范畴。对此如何认识与评价？我们认为，首先，从性质上讲，为他人谋取利益中的“利益”，既可以是合法的利益，也可以是非法的利益；既可以是正当的利益，也可以是不正当的利益；既可以是物质性利益，也可以是非物质性利益。因为刑法对“利益”的性质未作界定；其次，从作用上讲，为他人谋取利益仅仅限定着非法收受他人财物的受贿行为而不限定索取他人财物的受贿行为，索取他人财物的行为不以“为他人谋取利益”为法定要件。因为刑法第385条关于受贿罪的法条中，在“或者非法收受他人财物，为他人谋取利益的”这句话之前，用的是“索取他人财物的”，而这个“的”字就意味着其前面的意思和后面的意思是并列的；再次，从其在受贿罪中的地位讲，“为他人谋取利益”既不可以作纯主观要件的理解，更不可以作纯客观要件的理解，而应当从主客观相结合、相统一的角度予以理解。也就是说，不管行为人在主观上具有为他人谋取利益的意思，还是客观上实施了为他人谋取利益的行为，都属于“为他人谋取利益”。而在具体案件中，有的可能侧重于客观要件即主要是以客观要件的形式表现出来，如虽然没有承诺为他人谋取利益但实际已着手为他人谋利益的；有的则侧重于主观要件即主要是以主观要件的形式表现出来，如承诺为他人谋利益但最终由于其他原因没有为行贿人谋取到利益。具体而言，受贿罪中的“为他人谋取利益”这一法定要件可以从以下两个方面予以认定：
　　其一，有确实充分的证据证明行为人确曾在事前承诺为相对人谋取利益的。在这种情况下，行为人明知其为他人谋取利益的承诺是对相对人给付财物的报酬，因此，不管行为人在实际上是否为相对人谋取利益的，都完全符合现行刑法对受贿罪构成要件的立法规定。也就是说，只要有证据证明行为人作出过为他人谋取利益的承诺并基于此承诺而接受相对人的财物或者意图在为他人谋取利益之后再接受财物的，即构成受贿罪。当然，行为人作出的为他人谋取利益的承诺必须与所接受的财物具有因果关系，即接受财物是原因，承诺为他人谋取利益是结果，没有相对人的给付或者承诺给付财物，行为人就不会承诺为相对人谋取利益。如果行为人作出的为他人谋取利益的承诺不是他人给付财物引起的，即非法接受财物与承诺没有因果关系，就体现不出受贿的权钱交易本质，从而也就不成立受贿罪。
　　在司法实践中，基于承诺所构成的受贿罪主要有以下三种表现形式：一是接受财物在先，作出为相对人谋取利益的承诺在后。在这种情况下，行为人一般是会履行承诺的。但不管行为人在实际上是否履行承诺，只要有这种承诺并接受了他人的财物，就构成受贿罪；二是作出为他人谋取利益的承诺在先，而接受财物在后的。对此，行为人一般也是会履行承诺的；但有时也会出现这样的情况：行为人承诺为他人谋利益，相对人也交付了财物，但由于案发或者其他原因，而在实际上并没有为他人谋取利益的。这种情况也构成受贿罪；三是接受财物与作出为他人谋取利益的承诺同时发生的。这种情况下行为人往往是在接受他人财物后才为他人谋取利益的。
　　其二，尽管没有证据证明行为人确曾作出过为相对人谋取利益的承诺，但有证据证明行为人在事实上为他人谋取了利益，且其为相对人谋取利益的行为与其非法收受他人财物的行为具有因果关系，即接受财物是因，为他人谋取利益是果。司法实践中这种形式的受贿主要表现为以下三种方式：一是接受财物在先，为他人谋取利益在后，这是最为通常的受贿形式；二是为相对人谋取利益在先，接受他人财物在后。这种形式虽然较少，但只要查明为他人谋取利益与非法接受他人财物具有因果关系，即可以受贿罪论处；三是非法接受他人财物与为他人谋取利益同时发生，这种情况的受贿也比较少见，因此同样需要查明二者之间的因果关系。
　　综上，在被动接受他人财物的受贿案件中，根据现行刑法的规定，仅仅有证据证明行为人接受了他人财物，还不能据此就认为其行为构成了受贿罪。要认定其行为构成受贿罪，还必须同时证明行为人确曾承诺（不论是事前还是事后）为他人谋取利益；或者虽然没有承诺，但在事实上、客观上为相对人谋取了利益或者已着手为他人谋取利益，且其承诺或者实际上为他人谋取利益与非法接受他人财物之间具有因果关系。否则，仅仅被动接受他人的财物，而未有证据证明具有“为他人谋取利益”要件的存在，按照刑法规定的罪行法定原则，就不应当对行为人以受贿罪论处。显然，刑法将“为他人谋取利益”规定为受贿罪的构成要件，背离了受贿罪侵犯的直接客体在于国家工作人员的廉洁义务的理念，同时也造成了司法实践中认定上的困难：如果行为人在客观上、实际上为相对人谋取了利益，这属于客观存在、客观事实，对此，在司法实践中比较容易证明，在具体定罪时也不会产生争论；但问题是如果行为人仅仅承诺为相对人谋取利益，由于这种承诺属于主观性的东西，司法实践中往往比较难以认定，从而造成受贿案件的定性困难；有的甚至是虽然作出过为他人谋取利益的承诺，但后来又不想为相对人谋取利益，从而对造成受贿罪中“为他人谋取利益”认定上的困难。因此，为了准确依法惩治受贿犯罪，我们建议，刑法应当对受贿罪的构成要件进行修改：要么将受贿罪中的“为他人谋取利益”规定为纯记述性的、不需要法官进行价值评价就能作出决定的客观要件，并解释为行为人在实际上为相对人谋取到了利益；要么将“为他人谋取利益”这一在理论上引起争论、在实践中不好证明、不利于操作并与受贿罪的直接客体相矛盾的模棱两可的东西从受贿罪的法定要件中删去，直接将国家工作人员非法收受他人财物的行为规定为受贿罪。因为，收受贿赂的行为本身即背离了其廉洁义务。


北安市人民法院 李俊杰
GREEN JUSTICE: A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE

李恒翻译

NICOLE C. KIBERT
I. INTRODUCTION
Environmental injustice is a phenomena that occurs in the United States and around the world in which people of color and of lower socio-economic status are disproportionately affected by pollution, the sitting of toxic waste dumps, and other Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs). This paper addresses the historical and philosophical backgrounds of environmental injustice and reviews potential legal, practical, and philosophical solutions for achieving environmental justice. Initially “environmental justice” was referred to as” environmental racism” because of the disproportionate impact on people of color; however, it is now clear that environmental health risks are foisted predominately on lower income groups of all racial and ethnic groups. In order to be inclusive, as well as to avoid the extra baggage that comes with calling an act “racist,” practitioners almost exclusively use the term “environmental justice” rather than” environmental racism.” Though a discussion regarding nomenclature may seem superfluous, in the context of a discussion of the origins and strategies for achieving environmental justice its actually integral. The way that a society assigns a connotation onto of a word’s denotation has an enormous impact on how a phrase will be interpreted by the general public. Use of the term” environmental justice” is a step in bringing the issue of constitutional right to live in a healthy environment for all people? not just to those who are interested in racial equality.
II. WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines” environmental justice” as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group - including racial, ethnic rococo economic groups - should bear a disproportionate share of the
Negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, cal, and tribal programs. Many studies have shown that, over the past 20 years, minorities - African Americans in particular - are more likely to live-in close proximity to an environmental hazard. Unfortunately, there are many examples to choose from to illustrate this observation. Colin Crawford, in his book, “Uproar at Dancing Creek,” discusses in great detail the efforts of an entrepreneur to site a new hazardous waste facility in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Conspicuously, when Crawford compared Noxubee County with other counties in Mississippi, he found that it had the highest annual average unemployment rate from 1970 ?1993, a high rate of functional illiteracy with only 51.34 percent of its adult population having high school diplomas, and by far the lowest per captaincies in the region. In addition, of the 12,500 people who lived in Noxubee County, 70 percent were African American and poor. Crawford found that sitting of a hazardous waste dump in this poor, largely Minority County was not an accident, but a calculated campaign. It pitted the poor African American majority and whites against the minority, but politically powerful, white population in false promise of economic development that would bring new jobs. As Crawford stated, “people who most often bear the dangers of living near the excreta of our acquisitive industrial society are thievery same ones who have been most abused throughout our history.”
III. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT
The official history of environmental justice is approximately 20years old. In 1979, in Houston, Texas, residents formed community action group to block a hazardous waste facility from being built in their middle-class African American Neighborhood. In 1982, environmental justice made news in Warren, North Carolina when a protest regarding the sitting of a PCB landfill in a predominantly African American area resulted in over 500 arrests. The Warren protest was followed by a report by the General Accounting Office which found that three out of four landfills in EPA Region 4 were located in predominately African American areas, even though those areas comprised only 20 percent of the region’s population. An additional report addressing environmental injustice was published in 1987 by the United Church of Christ entitled ‘Toxic Waste and Race in the United States’ which “found that the racial composition of a community ? more than socioeconomic status ? was the most significant determinant of whether or not a commercial hazardous waste facility would be located there.” The People of Color Environmental Leadership Seminar was held in 1991 in Washington D.C. and was attended by 650 people from around the world. The attendees adopted a set of “principles for environmental justice” that were circulated at the Earth Summit in1992 in Rio de Janeiro. In 1992, the EPA established an Environmental Equity Workgroup. On recommendation from this group, the EPA started an Office of Environmental Justice. In1994, the Center for Policy Alternatives took another look at the United Church of Christ 1987 report. They found that minorities are 47 percent more likely than others to live near hazardous waste facilities. The latest initiative in environmental justice occurred in 1994when President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12898 which ordered federal agencies to comply with Title VI for all federally funded programs and activities that affect human health or the environment. Title VI states, “No person in the United States, shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Though overdue by environmental justice activist standards, President Clinton’s recognition of environmental justice increased government accountability, for which they were arguably already responsible, but now there was a clearly articulated standard.
IV .ORIGINS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
The degradation of the environment is fundamentally tied to the disproportionate burden placed on the disenfranchised members of our society: minorities, women, and the poor. Several environmental philosophies have emerged ? among them Deep Ecology, Ecological Feminism, and Bioregionalism ? to attempt to explain how it became acceptable to exploit the environment while endangering the health of certain groups of humans in the name of economic development. In this section, a brief review of these ecological philosophies, as well as an examination of industrial risk analysis, are presented as possible explanations for the origins of environmental injustice. Industries and governments use risk analysis to determine whether to allow projects to move forward. “When landscapes and ecosystems are regarded as commodities, then members of an ecosystem, including human beings, are treated as ‘isolated and extractable units.’” Industrial risk analysis determines how much exposure is acceptable in terms of “one-in-a-hundred-thousand or one-in-a-million additional ‘acceptable’ deaths for toxic chemical exposure.” While neutral on its face, risk analysis serves as a means for justifying disproportionate treatment for some” acceptable” percentage of an exposed human population. However, this method is fundamentally flawed because there is no set standard for which tests to use in determining risks. Therefore, extremely different conclusions can be reached about the same risk depending on which tests are used. When a potentially hazardous project is being proposed, if it is a well-organized and economically well-off community, the community members will be able to come up with their own risk analysis numbers showing an unacceptable risk resulting in permit denial. However, if the negative impact is going to fall mainly on people who are not able to fight back, then the project will most likely go ahead with a risk analysis showing unacceptable risk by the permitting agency. There are alternatives to risk analysis that will be discussed infra, in the solutions for achieving environmental justice section. Deep Ecology is an ecological philosophy that places humans within the context of ecological systems rather than outside or central to the system. In addition, humans are considered to be equal, not superior or more important, in value to other components of an ecological system. It is a science based philosophy in that it is based on the connections of an ecological system, but it is also a true philosophy in that it encourages humans to delve “deep” into their fundamental values. Arne Ness, considered the father of Deep Ecology, has developed a set of seven tenets which, when considered together, would form a type of ecological consciousness. The fourth tenet focuses on anti-class posture. “Diversity of human ways of life is, in part, due to (intended or unintended) exploitation and suppression on the part of certain groups. The exploiter lives differently from the exploited, but both are adversely affected in their potentialities of self-realization.” Naess and supporters of Deep Ecology believe that if we could focus on the impact of all of our actions on everything in the system (and importantly place humans within the system) that we could achieve social justice and live in harmony with the environment. Another one of the tenets is to fight against pollution and resource depletion. Taken together, these two tenets describe environmental justice: to treat all people equally while reducing pollution. Naess believes that when one of the tenets is considered independently problems will arise, and either the environment or a class of people will suffer. Therefore, Deep Ecology requires inclusive, open thinking rather than the current industrial risk analysis focus that we now predominately use when determining whether to allow a polluting industry to develop or continue, or when determining where they can dump their hazardous waste.
There is a small but growing section in the ecological philosophy movement called “bioregionalism” that envisions a redrawing of political boundaries to follow the contours of local ecosystems.” The globalization of modern culture has contributed to the spread of institutional values which threaten cultural and ecological diversity.” This movement believes that it will be necessary for people to begin functioning on a regional level in order to preserve the environment and protect ourselves from the affects of polluting industry Bioregionalisms call this ‘living in place.’ Bioregionalism means that “you are aware of the ecology, economy, and culture of the place where you live, and are committed to making choices that them.” More radically they believe that people need to live in a sustainable way that involves living in regional units that provide for its inhabitants while co-existing with the natural ecosystem. Environmental injustice occurs because the emphasis for development is often not based on local needs or the preservation of cultural or biological diversity. When the emphasis is on the industrial needs, rather than cultural or ecological needs, environmental injustice is destined to occur some eco feminist theorists have stated that the feminization of nature is what started the ability to degrade the earth and people without regret. Popular environmental slogans state “love your mother.” However, equating the earth and nature to a woman can have negative consequences in a patriarchal society that does not respect women. A recent Earth First! Slogan illustrates the problem: “The Earth is a witch, and the men still burn her.” As an environmental movement we definitely do not want to encourage the idea that mother earth will absorb everything we lob at her without asking anything in return. “Mother in patriarchal cultures she who provides all of our sustenance and who makes disappear all of our waste products, she who satisfies all of our wants and needs endlessly without any cost to us. Mother is she who loves sand will take care of us no matter what.”

英文原文出自以下网站：
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol17_1/kibert.pdf








绿色正义：环境非正义的全面剖析（译文）

NICOLE C. KIBERT
I. 介绍
环境的非正义经常发生在美国和世界其他地区的低收入人群之中,由于他们经济地位不高，所以更容易受到环境污染的影响，如有毒废料在这种群体中的传播以及对当地不需要的土地的利用(LULUs)等等，这是一种环境不公正是现象。本文从历史和哲学的角度来探讨环境不公道的现象和回顾潜在的法律, 实践，且从哲学的角度来解答如何达到环境正义。 最初的"环境正义" 是首先在"环境种族主义"提到的。它是对不同颜色的人的不均衡的冲击与歧视。但是, 现在的情况是确切的环境健康风险被蒙骗在更低的收入种族和族群中。为了将"环境种族主义"包含在“环境正义"之中，并且避免叫此行动为"种族主义者的额外行李"实践者几乎完全规定" 环境正义"相当于环境种族主义"虽然一次讨论关于命名原则也许似乎多余, 但就讨论的状况起源和战略上来讲，为达到环境正义，它实际上不可缺少。社会分配方式对公众关于一个词组的理解有着极大的影响。"环境正义" 是指依据宪法给予的权利，所有人民都应该居住在一个健康的环境之中，而不仅仅局限于种族平等。
II. 什么是环境正义?
美国环境保护代办处对"环境正义" 下的定义是：所有人民应当受到公平的对待和有效地介入到环境发展, 环境法章程和政策的实施和执行之中。不管种族, 颜色, 原国籍, 或收入。 公平对待意味没有小组，包括没有种族, 没有种族洛可可式的经济集团。对环境污染的责任，大家应该负担一个不均衡的份额。消极环境后果起因于工业，市政, 商业操作或施行的联邦、部族节目。许多研究显示：在过去20 年中, 少数非裔美国人特别容易遭受到由于环境污染而引起的危害。不幸地, 有许多例子可供选择来说明这种情况。Colin Crawford, 在他的书里, "跳舞小河的骚乱"中谈论到了那些了不起的企业家在努力选址的过程中将一种新的有害废料设施安排在密西西比的Noxubee 县。显眼地, 当Crawford 将Noxubee 县与其它县比较时, 他发现在1970 年-1993年间，它有最高的年平均失业率, 功能文盲也以一种高速率在增长。在其最低的captaincies区域，成人人口的百分之51.34 只有中学毕业证书。 另外, 12,500 人民居住在Noxubee 县, 百分之70 是非裔美国人和贫寒。 Crawford 发现了有害废料转储在这个贫寒县不主要是意外事故, 而是一次故意的竞选。少数非裔美国人，多数是白人, 在政治上强有力, 白人说这样会带来新工作机会，经济发展回更快的假的诺言。 如同Crawford 陈述, "谁经常忍受工业社会排泄物而在这种危险的环境之中生存的人往往是被历史忽略的人。"
III. 环境正义运动的简要历史
环境正义的正式历史起源于20多年前。1979 年,在休斯敦, 得克萨斯, 居民形成社区活动小组阻拦一种有害废料设施被修造在他们的中产阶级非裔美国人聚居地。1982 年, 最有新闻价值的关于环境正义的报道发生在北卡罗来纳。当一个抗议关于PCB 垃圾填埋在非裔美国人地区的会议取得了完全成功。 Warren的抗议报告发现了会计办公室的垃圾填埋在非裔美国人地区。虽然那些区域只有百分之20 住人。1987 年一个另外的报告演讲环境的不公道被出版了。由基督教会授权的"有毒废料和种族团结的教会"发现在团结的状态的社区是没有一种商业有害废料设施不会在那里被找出的。1991 年"颜色环境领导研讨会在华盛顿D.C.举行， 并且有世界各地650 个人出席了该会议。到会者采取了被散布在地球山顶的在里约热内卢的一套"环境正义"的原则。1992 年, EPA 建立了一个环境产权工作小组。由这个小组推荐, EPA 建立了环境正义办公室。1994年, 政策制定中心看了看基督团结教会在1987的报告， 他们发现少数人种比其他人多百分之47 的可能居住在有害废料设施附近。 最新的主动性环境正义发生在1994克林顿总统发布的行政命令中。第12898 文件下令联邦政府机关遵照标题VI ，杜绝所有联邦被资助的节目和活动影响人类健康或环境。标题VI 表明："没有人将在美国的地面，受到种族, 颜色或原国籍的歧视从而被排除, 被否认而得不到好处,大家都有权根据任一节目或活动接受联邦经济援助。"根据环境正义活动家标准, 克林顿政府增加了政府责任, 为那些争论已经负起了责任,现在有了一个清楚、明确的表达标准。
IV. 环境不公道的起源
环境的退化的负担根本上被不均衡地安置在我们的社会的不同阶层: 少数民族, 妇女, 和贫寒人口。从而涌现了环境哲学，在他们之中有深刻的生态主义, 生态学女权主义者都试图解释怎么使环境污染以经济发展的名义危及特定人群健康的时候变得可接受。在这个部分, 对这些生态学哲学进行简要的回顾, 并且对工业风险进行分析检测, 提出了环境不公道的起源可能的解释。产业和政府使用风险分析确定是否允许项目进行。"当风景和生态系统被认定为商品, 然后生态系的成员, 包括人, 被认为是被隔绝的和可取的单位。"工业风险分析确定是可接受的根据"。但是, 这个方法是根本上有缺陷的因为没有测试使用在确定风险的集合标准。所以, 极端不同的结论可能是使测试与不测试达到大致同样的风险。当一个潜在地危害项目被提议, 如果这是在一个组织完善和经济上充裕的社区, 社区成员能产生他们自己的风险分析数字显示一种不能接受的风险造从而否认许可证。但是, 如果负面地影响使得人们无力还击, 该项目很可能在先前的风险分析显示不能接受的情况下被允许。他们将有选择性地对风险分析进行讨论，来达到环境正义。本质的生态是安置人在生态学系统而不是在外部或中央之内的生态学哲学。另外, 人被认为是平等的, 没有特权和贵贱, 按价值对一个生态学系统的其它组分。生态系统的其他价值是基于其哲学价值的，而哲学价值又是以生态系统本身为根本，并且他又是一个哲学理念，那就是鼓励人们将这一本质作为其基础价值。Arne Ness,深刻生态主义之父, 开发了一套七条原则，当组合在一起时, 会形成一种生态学意识。第四个原则焦点在反类姿势。"人的生活方式变化, 一部分是由于(意欲的或不愿意的) 开发和镇压在某些小组而形成。开发与剥削不同, 但两个均有害地影响了认识自我的潜在性。"深刻生态主义者Naess 和他的支持者相信如果我们能将所有的影响我们的一切行动在系统中集中起来。(重要地是安置人在系统之内) 那我们就能达到社会正义和居住与环境一致。另外一个原则则是与污染和资源怠尽做斗争。将其结合起来, 这两条原则就描述了环境正义: 相等地对待所有人民，努力减少环境污染。Naess 相信这两个原则当中的一个独立地出现时, 一部分环境或人类将遭受污染。所以, 深刻的生态要求包含的，开放的思维与价值观比起我们经常使用的工业风险分析来确定是否允许污染产业出现或继续,或确定何处他们能倾销他们的有害废料的方法要好得多。有一个影响小但正在增长的部分在生态学哲学中叫做" bioregionalism"的运动正在侵蚀着政治经济系统。 "现代文化的全球化对文化的传播和生态学价值的变化作出了贡献。这运动相信, 对于人们而言将非常有必要开展一种机制来保存环境和保护自己免受污染产业影响。Bioregionalisms 认为这叫居住到位。 Bioregionalism 意味着 "您意识到生态, 经济, 和您居住地方的文化, 并且承诺做出他们的选择。"他们更加根本地相信,人们需要一种能够与之相邻的自然生态系相共生的一种能承受的方法。环境不公道的发生主要是因为为发展经济经常不根据地方需要或文化或生物变化而开发。当着眼于工业需要, 而不是文化或生态学需要时, 环境不公道则像女权理论家阐明的那样将贬低地球和人民的能力而没有遗憾。普遍的环境口号陈述为"爱您的母亲"。然而, 视同地球和自然像妇女一样使我们忽略了一种消极的后果，那就是我们在一个家长式社会中而不尊敬妇女。最近地球首先 喊出一种口号: "地球是妓女, 男人仍在奸污她"。正如我们正在进行的环保运动一样，大地母亲将吸收一切我们抛投在她那里的东西并且没有要求任何东西的回报。 "母亲在家长式文化下提供所有我们的生计并且吸收我们的废品, 她无限制地满足所有我们的需要而不计我们任何的费用。不管我们是什么，大地母亲都会像爱他的儿子一样爱护我们。


李恒，东华大学法学专业毕业，法学学士。潜心研学环境法学多年，有多篇相关文章在各类法学杂志发表，希望结交致力于环保法律事业的朋友！
henleyroyal@126.com