Standing to Sue Beyond Individual Rights: Who Should Be Eligible to Bring Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China?

Abstract

Formally adopted in 2012, environmental public interest litigation in China has expanded standing beyond individual rights by granting administrative authorities, procuratorates, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the ability to initiate environmental public interest litigation (PIL). However, the aims of enhancing the enforcement of environmental regulation and the development of the ‘objective legality’ model through civil society have not been met. This is as a result of administrative authorities and procuratorates being granted standing, which inhibits NGOs from initiating their own PIL in line with the aims of the ‘objective legality’ model. In order to promote participation by civil society and its actors in environmental law enforcement, NGOs should be granted preferential standing in environmental PIL. To this end, the current requirements for NGOs to be granted standing should be relaxed, and the standing granted to administrative authorities and procuratorates should be limited or removed.

Beyond the Partnership Paradigm: Toward an Extended Typology of Government/Nonprofit Relationship Patterns

“…Public interest litigation in accordance with China's Environmental Protection Law evolved as a channel in which NGOs inform policy and lawmaking. Recently, however, many administrative hurdles impede Chinese nonprofit's public interest litigation in practice (Gao & Whittaker, 2019). Moreover, since 2012/2013 under Xi Jinping, the environment for GROs has become harsher and it has become more difficult for them to work without official registration, as the central government tightens control and organizations refrain from fueling grievances against the state (Spires, 2011).…”

Quarantined judicial expansion: The environmental legal entrepreneurship of Chinese courts, procuratorates, and NGOs

“…Others note that in recent years, cause lawyers and legal NGOs have faced increasing pressure and restrictions, which have been partially driven by the state's attempts to contain potential court‐civil society synergy (Fu, 2018; Wang, 2020b; Zhu & Jun, 2022). This has led scholars to question if the recent law‐based governance (依法治国) reforms—including the formalization and expansion of the PIL system—can empower the judicial institutions to become major players in the formation and implementation of key policies (Ding & Xiao, 2021; Gao & Whittaker, 2019; Shi & van Rooij, 2016; Zhai & Chang, 2018). For instance, van Rooij, Stern, and Fürst argue that the introduction of courts, procuratorates, and NGOs as regulatory actors “may not make much difference in terms of regulatory capacity, regulatory autonomy, or even environmental outcomes,” as they “operate in a space defined by the party state” (van Rooij et al, 2016, p. 7).…”

Defining the Environmental Public Interest Litigation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

“…Gao and Whittaker found that although China's environmental public interest litigation has been adopted very early, the goal of strengthening environmental supervision and law enforcement through civil society and developing an "objective legitimacy" model has not yet been achieved. NGOs should be given precedence in environmental public interest lawsuits in order to encourage civil society and its players to participate in environmental law enforcement [2]. China's environmental governance system began a complete transformation after the objective of ecological civilization construction was incorporated into China's national policy, according to Jiang et al It increases judicial environmental protection by changing the public interest litigation system to meet environmental concerns in order to improve the environmental governance system.…”