The ecologization of the Chinese Civil Code

Authors

  • Mingzhe Zhu University of Antwerp

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.405

Abstract

Although the emergence of sustainability development in civil law has triggered substantial discussion, scarce literature is available in English on the introduction of ecological norms to the newly promulgated Chinese Civil Code, which came into force at the beginning of 2021. This article intends to fill the gap by providing an overview of the structure and significance of the principles and rules designed to render the Civil Code more adaptable to the global urgency of sustainable development. The ecological principle added to the Civil Code is designed to promote public interests rather than individual liberty. Unlike other civil law principles, the ecological principle needs to be scientifically justified, which no longer depends only on judicial discretion. Regarded as a continuation of the movement for socialization, the ecological principle contributes to the global trend of questioning anthropocentrism in law and manifests itself in a new understanding of human activity. Ecologizing the Civil Code entails a methodological agenda that incorporates more pragmatic, coherent, and policy-oriented argumentation in judicial practice. Moreover, it entails an ontological agenda, still in formation, that urges us to recognize the inevitable connections between human and nonhuman worlds on the ontological side. Within the scope of this principle, the section of the Civil Code on property law imposes the duty to act in accordance with the necessity of resource conservation and environmental protection. It is also predictable that stricter limitations will be imposed on property rights, in the name of good neighborliness. State intervention by courts due to ecological considerations will become more frequent in contractual disputes. Finally, the Code introduces the notions of punitive liability and pure environmental harm, which diverge from the classical continental tradition of understanding civil liability. Despite the theoretical novelties, the question of to what extent civil adjudication can achieve a comprehensive ecological transformation still needs to be scrutinized.

Keywords:

ecological principle, pragmatism, state intervention, private autonomy, punitiveness, environmental protection, resource conservation

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Alexy, Robert. 2001. Theorie Der Juristischen Argumentation. Berlin, Suhrkamp.

Bachtell, John. 2018. Toward Ecological Civilisation. Guardian. September 12.

Beck, Ulrich, Wolfgang Bonss, Christoph Lau. 2016. The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. Theory, Culture & Society 20 (2): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276403020002001.

Benjamin, Walter. 1969. Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, ed. by Hannah Arendt, transl. by Harry Zohn. New York, Schocken Books.

Biber, Eric. 2017. Law in the Anthropocene Epoch. The Georgetown Law Journal 106 (1): 1–68.

Calzadilla, Paola Villavicencio, Louis J. Kotzé. 2018. Living in Harmony with Nature? A Critical Appraisal of the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia. Transnational Environmental Law 7 (3): 397–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102518000201.

Capra, Fritjof, Ugo Mattei. 2015. The Ecology of Law: Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community. Oakland, Berret-Koehler Publ.

Charmont, Joseph. 1903. La Socialisation Du Droit. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 11 (3): 380–405.

Collart-Dutilleul, François, Raphaël Romi. 1994. Propriété Privée et Protection de l’environnement. L’Actualité Juridique. Droit Administratif 9: 571–592.

Damaška, Mirjan R. 1986. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process. New Haven, Yale University Press.

Demogue, René. 1909. La notion de sujet de droit: caractères et conséquences. Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 8: 610–655.

Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Ewald, William. 1995. Comparative Jurisprudence (I): What Was It Like to Try a Rat. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 143 (6): 1889–2149.

Ganguly, Geetanjali, Joana Setzer, Veerle Heyvaert. 2018. If at First You Don’t Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 38 (4): 841–868. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy029.

Gare, Arran. 2017. From “Sustainable Development” to “Ecological Civilization”: Winning the War for Survival. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy 13 (3): 130–153.

Grimonprez, Benoît. 2015. La Fonction Environnementale de La Propriété. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 3: 539–550.

Grimonprez, Benoît. 2019. Le Droit de Propriété à l’ère Du Changement Climatique. Le Changement Climatique: Quel Rôle Pour Le Droit Privé?: 243–254. Paris, Dalloz. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01882843 (accessed: 01.12.2021).

Hager, Günter. 1986. Umweltschäden — ein Prüfstein für die Wandlungs- und Leistungsfähigkeit des Deliktsrechts. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 39 (32): 1961–1971.

Harlan, Tyler. 2020. Green Development or Greenwashing? A Political Ecology Perspective on China’s Green Belt and Road. Eurasian Geography and Economics 62 (2): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1795700.

Hermitte, Marie-Angèle. 2011. La nature, sujet de droit? Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 66 (1): 173–212.

Huang, Wei (ed.). 2020. Explanatory Notes of Law on Property. Beijing, Fǎlǜ chūbǎn shè Publ. (In Chinese)

Jamin, Christophe. 2011. L’enseignement Du Droit à Sciences Po : Autour de La Polémique Suscitée Par l’arrêté Du 21 Mars 2007. Jurisprudence. Revue Critique 1: 125–137.

Jamin, Christophe. 2015. Les habitudes d’enseigner. Les habitudes du droit: 91–98, éd. Nicolas Dissaux, Youssef Guenzoui. Paris, Dalloz.

Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. A New Climate for Society. Theory, Culture & Society 27 (2–3): 233–253.

Jestaz, Philippe, Christophe Jamin. 2004. La doctrine. Paris, Dalloz.

Josserand, Louis. 1927. De l’esprit des droits et de leur relativité. Paris, Dalloz.

Jouffroy, Théodore. 1825. Comment Les Dogmes Finissent. Glob 2 (111).

Koziol, Helmut. 2008. Punitive Damages — A European Perspective. Louisiana Law Review 68 (3): 741–764.

Latour, Bruno. 1998. To Modernize or to Ecologize? That’s the Question. Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millenium: 221–242. London, New York, Routledge.

Lv, Zhongmei (ed.). 2018. Implementation Outline of the Green Principle in the Civil Code. Zhōngguó fǎxué 1: 5–27. (In Chinese)

Mages, Alexis. 2011. La socialisation du droit privé à Lyon (1870–1940) marque-t-elle la fin des droits subjectifs? L’histoire des facultés de droit de province, éd. Jean Christophe Gaven, Frédéric Audren: 363–383. Toulouse, Presses Universitaires Toulouse. Available at: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00916376 (accessed: 01.12.2021).

Martínez Alles, María Guadalupe. 2019. Punitive Damages: Reorienting the Debate in Civil Law Systems. Journal of European Tort Law 10 (1): 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2019-0103.

Mingzhe, Zhu. 2020. Sustainability and the Ecological Turn of Contemporary Civil Law. Xuéshù yuèkān 6: 84–97. (In Chinese)

Morrison, Roy. 1995. Ecological Democracy. Boston, MA, South End Press.

Pan, Jiahua. 2016. China’s Environmental Governing and Ecological Civilization. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47429-7.

Polanyi, Karl. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 2nd ed. Boston, Beacon Press.

Pound, Roscoe. 1908. Mechanical Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review 8 (8): 605–623. https://doi.org/10.2307/1108954.

Pound, Roscoe. 1911. The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. Harvard Law Review 24 (8): 591–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/1324094.

Radbruch, Gustav. 1931. Du Droit Individualiste Au Droit Social. Archives de Philosophie Du Droit et de La Sociologie Juridique 2: 387–398.

Radbruch, Gustav. 2003. Rechtsphilosophie. Heidelberg, Hüthig Jehle Rehm.

Serres, Michel. 2008. Le droit peut sauver la nature. Pouvoirs 127: 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3917/pouv.127.0005.

Su, Yongqin. 2010. The Systematization and Rules of Construction of Modern Civil Codes. Jiāodà fǎxué 1: 59–93. (In Chinese)

Viñuales, Jorge. 2018. The Organisation of the Anthropocene: In Our Hands? Leiden, Brill.

Wang, Alex L. 2018. Symbolic Legitimacy and Chinese Environmental Reform. Environmental Law 48 (4): 699–760.

Yin, Tian. 2016. Review on “Basic Principles” (Chapter 1) of General Principles of Civil Code. Fǎxuéjiā 5: 10–19. (In Chinese)

Yong, Fan. 2019. The Green Boundaries of Private Autonomy. Huádōng zhèngfǎ dàxué xuébào 2: 116–123. (In Chinese)

Yuan, Shibu (Hrsg.) 2016. Juristische Methodenlehre in China Und Ostasien. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.

Zhang, Zhongxiang. 2015. Climate Mitigation Policy in China. Climate Policy 15 (sup1): S1–S6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1096477.

Zhao, Yue, Lyu, Shuang, Wang, Zhu. 2019. Prospects for Climate Change Litigation in China. Transnational Environmental Law 8 (2): 349–377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102519000116.

Downloads

Published

31.12.2020

How to Cite

Zhu, M. . (2020). The ecologization of the Chinese Civil Code. Pravovedenie, 64(4), 511–525. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.405