Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regulating Through Litigation: Regulatory Functions of NGO-Led Civil Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China

  • 100 Accesses

Abstract

As a tort-based framework, civil environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) established in China over the past decade authorizes environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to challenge any “acts of polluting or damaging the environment that have harmed the public interest.” Treating civil EPIL as a legal pathway to enter the regulatory process, this chapter examines how the broad scope and flexible remedies of civil EPIL have allowed environmental NGOs to use it as a powerful regulatory tool. It demonstrates that NGO-led civil EPILs perform valuable regulatory functions by providing an alternative enforcement mechanism when government enforcement fails, filling various regulatory gaps when a statutory remedy is unavailable or weak, challenging the legitimacy of government decisions, and setting the agenda in the regulatory process. Meanwhile, this chapter identifies several pitfalls of utilizing civil EPIL as a regulatory tool: threatening the primacy of government enforcement, displacing statutory remedies, unreasonable calculation of environmental damages, and the misuse of civil EPIL. This suggests that environmental NGOs should avoid the inappropriate use of civil EPIL so as to increase its legitimacy and regulatory significance in China’s environmental governance system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Wang (2013).

  2. 2.

    See Kitagawa (2017) and Wang (2018).

  3. 3.

    See e.g., Carpenter-Gold (2015), McCallum (2017), Zhai and Chang (2018), Gao and Whittaker (2019) and Jiang et al. (2020).

  4. 4.

    See e.g., Zhang and Mayer (2017), Sun and Tuholske (2017), Gao (2018), Liu (2019) and Xie and Xu (2021a, b).

  5. 5.

    See Ren and Liu (2020).

  6. 6.

    See Van Rooij et al. (2016).

  7. 7.

    See Wang (2010), pp. 6–8.

  8. 8.

    See Cao and Wang (2011), p. 221.

  9. 9.

    See Zhai and Chang (2018), p. 372.

  10. 10.

    See Wang and Gao (2010), Stern (2013), pp. 115–122 and Sun and Tuholske (2017), pp. 10498–10499.

  11. 11.

    See Zhang and Mayer (2017), p. 205 and Gao and Whittaker (2019), pp. 342–343.

  12. 12.

    See Liu (2015) and McCallum (2017), pp. 69–72.

  13. 13.

    See Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Authorizing the Supreme People’s Procuratorate to Launch the Pilot Program of Initiating Public Interest Actions in Certain Areas (2015). For implementation of the pilot program, see Ding and Xiao (2021) and Zhai and Chang (2018), pp. 379–383.

  14. 14.

    SPC Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation (2015) (2015 EPIL Interpretation).

  15. 15.

    See Zhai and Chang (2018), pp. 377–378.

  16. 16.

    See Art.19 2015 EPIL Interpretation.

  17. 17.

    See Art.19 2015 EPIL Interpretation.

  18. 18.

    See Art.21 2015 EPIL Interpretation.

  19. 19.

    See, e.g., Li (2014), Xu (2010) and Zhang and Wang (2012).

  20. 20.

    Arts.1234, 1235 Civil Code (2021).

  21. 21.

    Arts. 18, 20 2015 EPIL Interpretation (amended 2020).

  22. 22.

    Thompson (2000), p. 185.

  23. 23.

    Discussion on the differences between the U.S. citizen suit and Chinese civil EPIL is drawn from Chu (2019).

  24. 24.

    See, e.g., Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) (2012); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A) (2012). Citizen suit provisions also allow plaintiffs to challenge agencies who fail to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the statutes. See, e.g., Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2) (2012); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2) (2012). Since this chapter only focuses on civil EPIL, this type of agency-forcing actions will not be discussed.

  25. 25.

    See Miller (1983), p. 10310.

  26. 26.

    See Percival and Goger (2001), p. 129.

  27. 27.

    See, e.g., Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(1) (2012); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11046(a)(1)(A) (2012).

  28. 28.

    See, e.g., Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A) (2012); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1)(A) (2012).

  29. 29.

    See, e.g., Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2) (2012); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(3) (2012); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(2) (2012).

  30. 30.

    See Wang (2013) and Ryan (2013).

  31. 31.

    See e.g., Economy (2004), Ma and Ortolano (2000), Van Rooij (2012), Wang (2007), Van Rooij and Lo (2010), McElwee (2011) and Xu and Faure (2016).

  32. 32.

    See, e.g., Sitaraman (2007), Van Rooij (2012), Carpenter-Gold (2015) and Chu (2019).

  33. 33.

    See Sun and Tuholske (2017), pp. 10503–10504 and Xie and Xu (2021b), pp. 9–10.

  34. 34.

    See Guiding Case No. 131, All China Envtl. Fed’n v Jinghua Group Zhenhua Co., Ltd., https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-216931.html.

  35. 35.

    See Model EPIL Case No. 3, Friends of Nature v Jinling Chem. Co., Ltd., http://www.xinhuanet.com//legal/2017-03/07/c_129503217.htm.

  36. 36.

    See All China Envtl. Fed’n v Jiangshan Biological Preparation Co., Ltd., Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court, First Instance No. 2 (2014).

  37. 37.

    See Chu (2019), pp. 507–509.

  38. 38.

    See Chu (2019), pp. 493–495 and Faure and Liu (2014).

  39. 39.

    See Model Environmental Tort Case No. 1, Friends of Nature et al. v Xie Zhijin et al., https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-16396.html.

  40. 40.

    See Nanping Intermediate People’s Court, First Instance No. 38 (2015).

  41. 41.

    See Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province, Second Instance No. 2060 (2015); Supreme People’s Court, Retrial No.1919 (2016).

  42. 42.

    See Model EPIL Case No. 1, Taizhou Envtl. Prot. Ass’n of Jiangsu Prov. v Taixing Jinhui Chem. Co., Ltd. et al., http://www.xinhuanet.com//legal/2017-03/07/c_129503217.htm.

  43. 43.

    See Bie (2015).

  44. 44.

    See Supreme People’s Court, Retrial No. 1366 (2015).

  45. 45.

    See Tyler (2006).

  46. 46.

    See Guiding Case No. 134, Jianshi Huang Changping Mining Co., Ltd. v Green Volunteer League of Chongqing, https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-216961.html.

  47. 47.

    See Wanshan People’s Court of Chongqing, First Instance No. 00001; Second Intermediate People’s Court of Chongqing, Second Instance No. 772 (2016).

  48. 48.

    See Wang (2020).

  49. 49.

    See Friends of Nature (2017) and interview with Friends of Nature.

  50. 50.

    See Guiding Case No.173, Friends of Nature v China Hydropower Eng’g Consulting Group Xinping Dev. Co., Ltd. & Power China Kunming Survey and Design Inst. Co., Ltd., https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-334691.html; Higher People’s Court of Yunnan Province, Second Instance No. 824 (2020).

  51. 51.

    See Wang (2020).

  52. 52.

    Ecological red lines refer to “the strictly controlled boundaries legally drawn for key areas of ecological functions and ecologically sensitive or fragile areas”. See UNEP (2016).

  53. 53.

    For the detailed information about this case, see Zhang (2022), Yang (2021) and Ma (2021).

  54. 54.

    See Kim and Jones (2006), p. 101.

  55. 55.

    See Beach et al. (2006).

  56. 56.

    See Art.11 Regulation on the Management of Environmental Protection of Construction Projects (1998, revised 2017); Arts. 28, 32, 34 Environmental Impact Assessment Law (2002, amended 2016 and 2018).

  57. 57.

    See Xie and Xu (2021a), pp. 10–11, Xie and Xu (2021b), pp. 17–19 and Gao and Whittaker (2019), pp. 337–341.

  58. 58.

    See Xi and Hou (2018).

  59. 59.

    See Ding and Xiao (2021), Xie and Xu (2021b), pp. 11–13 and Shi and Van Rooij (2016), pp. 49–51.

  60. 60.

    See Xie and Xu (2021b).

  61. 61.

    Curtailment refers to the deliberate abandonment of electricity generation of effective power capacity usually due to system-wide oversupply or transmission constraints.

  62. 62.

    See National People’s Congress Standing Committee Law Enforcement Inspection Team, Report on the Inspection of the Implementation of the Renewable Energy Law, 24 December 2019, http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/201912/2b7568de01944c33b9326c325dcd498f.shtml.

  63. 63.

    See National Energy Administration, Accessing to the Grid Network by Wind Power in 2016, 26 January 2017, http://www.nea.gov.cn/2017-01/26/c_136014615.htm.

  64. 64.

    See Zhang (2019b) and Liu and Xu (2018).

  65. 65.

    See Diao (2018a).

  66. 66.

    See Friends of Nature, Our Aim Is to Draw Attention to the Issue of Wind and Solar Curtailment and Deal with This Problem, 12 April 2018, https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/MqfZRVZGYx2ASCuDDFhxzw.

  67. 67.

    See Diao (2018b).

  68. 68.

    See Friends of Nature v State Grid Gansu Electric Power Co., Higher People’s Court of Gansu Province, Second Instance No. 679 (2018).

  69. 69.

    See Friends of Nature, Ningxia Wind Curtailment case: Creating Bright Futures for Children, 5 August 2020, http://www.fon.org.cn/action/domain/content/160.

  70. 70.

    See Zhang (2019a).

  71. 71.

    For scholarly work on the Gansu and Ningxia cases, see Chen (2020), Zhang (2020), He (2021) and Zhu (2022).

  72. 72.

    See SPC, White Paper on China’s Environmental and Resources Trial (2019), https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-228341.html.

  73. 73.

    See SPC Opinion on Implementing the Yangtze River Protection Law (2021), https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-287881.html.

  74. 74.

    See NDRC and NEA, Implementation Measures to Resolve the Curtailment of Hydro, Wind and Solar Energy (2017), http://zfxxgk.nea.gov.cn/auto87/201711/t20171113_3056.htm; NRDC and NEA, Clean Energy Consumption Action Plan (2018–2020) (2018), https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/ghxwj/201812/t20181204_960958.html?code=&state=123.

  75. 75.

    See NEA, Press Conference of NEA on Accessing to the Grid Network by Renewable Energy in 2021, 28 January 2018, http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2022-01/29/content_5671076.htm.

  76. 76.

    See, e.g., McCallum (2017), pp. 79–80, Zhai and Chang (2018), pp. 383–385, Gao (2018), pp. 64–67 and Gao and Whittaker (2019), pp. 341–346.

  77. 77.

    See McCallum (2017), pp. 73–74, Sun and Tuholske (2017), p. 10506 and Liu (2019), pp. 230–231.

  78. 78.

    See, e.g., Zhang and Mayer (2017), pp. 224–225, Zhai and Chang (2018), pp. 385–386, Gao (2018), pp. 70–72 and Xie and Xu (2021a), pp. 16–20.

  79. 79.

    See, e.g., Zhai and Chang (2018), p. 386 and Xie and Xu (2021b), pp. 18–19.

  80. 80.

    See Reisinger et al. (2010), p. 11.

  81. 81.

    See id.

  82. 82.

    See, e.g., Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) (2012); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1)(B) (2012).

  83. 83.

    See, e.g., Wang (2016), Gong (2017), pp. 109, 123 and Luo (2017), pp. 253–254.

  84. 84.

    Art. 12 2015 EPIL Interpretation.

  85. 85.

    Art. 26 2015 EPIL Interpretation.

  86. 86.

    The Forestry Law requires approval by relevant forestry authorities if prospecting, mining, and various construction projects need to occupy woodlands. See Art. 37(1) Forestry Law (1984, amended 1998 and 2009, revised 2019).

  87. 87.

    See Art. 43(1) Regulation on the Implementation of the Forestry Law (2000, revised 2011, 2016 and 2018).

  88. 88.

    See Ministry of Environmental Protection, Recommended Methods for Ecological Damage Appraisal and Assessment (II)] (2014), Appendix A, A.2.3.

  89. 89.

    42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–9675 (2012).

  90. 90.

    See Latham et al. (2011), p. 756.

  91. 91.

    See Lee and Bridgen (2002), p. 9.

  92. 92.

    Injury is broadly defined as a measurable adverse change in the chemical or physical quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting directly or indirectly from exposure to a release of a hazardous substance. See 43 C.F.R. § 11.14 (v) (2017).

  93. 93.

    See id. § 11.63.

  94. 94.

    See id. § 11.70 (a).

  95. 95.

    See id. § 11.80 (b).

  96. 96.

    See Diao (2016).

  97. 97.

    See Spring (2015); 2019 Model Environmental and Resources Case No. 33, Friends of Nature v Hyundai Motor, https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-228361.html.

  98. 98.

    See 2019 Model Environmental and Resources Case No. 31, China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation v Shenzhen Sumei Co. & Taobao, https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-228361.html.

  99. 99.

    See Yuan (2020).

  100. 100.

    See China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation v Yalong River Hydropower Development Co., Ltd., Sichuan Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People’s Court, First Instance No. 45 (2015).

  101. 101.

    See Ho (2008), Thompson and Lu (2006), Yang (2005), Schwartz (2004) and Lo and Leung (2000).

References

  • Beach M, Bleish B, Yang S (2006) The role of public participation in ecological impact assessment (ECIA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) in China. China Environ Ser:117–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Bie T (2015) Successful experience of environmental public interest litigation—analysis of the Taizhou “sky high award” case. China Environment News

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao M, Wang F (2011) Environmental public interest litigation in China. Asia Pac Law Rev 19:217–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter-Gold D (2015) Castles made of sand: public-interest litigation and China’s new Environmental Protection Law. Harv Environ Law Rev 39:241–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W (2020) Comparative study of climate change litigation: analysis based on two environmental public interest lawsuits on wind and solar curtailment. J Law Appl:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu J (2019) Vindicating public environmental interest: defining the role of environmental public interest litigation in China. Ecol Law Q 45:485–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Diao F (2016) Petrochina Jilin Petrochemical Company was sued for pollution, defending that “closing the plant would cause more harm to the environment.” In: The Paper. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1563840

  • Diao F (2018a) Environmental NGO claims 0.3 billion for wind and solar curtailment; Ningxia Grid: we are not able to purchase the electricity in full amount. In: The Paper. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2069105. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Diao F (2018b) Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court dismissed Friends of Nature’s suit against State Grid Gansu for wind and solar curtailment: case acceptance criteria were not met. In: The Paper. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2364374. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Ding C, Xiao H (2021) A paper tiger? Prosecutorial regulators in China’s civil environmental public interest litigations. Fordham Environ Law Rev 32:323–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Economy EC (2004) The river runs black: the environmental challenge to China’s future. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Faure MG, Liu J (2014) Compensation for environmental damage in China: theory and practice. Pace Environ Law Rev 31:226–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friends of Nature (2017) To save the endangered species of green peafowl, environmental organizations submitted a letter to the Ministry of Environmental Protection. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5OTY1MTc4MA==&mid=2652700674&idx=2&sn=84d830dbb9aaf411dadc34dc47e6ce29&chksm=bcd190a98ba619bf153f15b6fa92eabcc310c3e1eee09b9089b0e6dbde3d155afd726540b0bf&scene=21#wechat_redirect. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Gao Q (2018) “Public interest litigation” in China: panacea or placebo for environmental protection? China: Int J 16:47–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Q, Whittaker S (2019) Standing to sue beyond individual rights: who should be eligible to bring environmental public interest litigation in China? Transnatl Environ Law 8:327–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong G (2017) Just look like twins: comparative study of environmental public interest litigation in China and the United States. J Comp Law:105–125

    Google Scholar 

  • He X (2021) Mitigation and adaptation through environmental impact assessment litigation: rethinking the prospect of climate change litigation in China. Transnatl Environ Law 10:413–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho P (2008) Self-imposed censorship and de-politicized politics in China: green activism or a color revolution? In: Ho P, Edmonds RL (eds) China’s embedded activism: opportunities and constraints of a social movement. Routledge, London; New York, pp 20–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang H, Blazey P, Wang Y (2020) China’s new approach to environmental governance and environmental public interest litigation. Asia Pac J Environ Law 23:39–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim MJ, Jones RE (2006) Public participation with Chinese characteristics. China Environ Ser:98–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitagawa H (2017) Environmental policy under President Xi Jinping leadership: the changing environmental norms. In: Kitagawa H (ed) Environmental policy and governance in China. Springer Japan, Tokyo, pp 1–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Latham M, Schwartz VE, Appel CE (2011) The intersection of tort and environmental law: where the twains should meet and depart. Fordham Law Rev 80:737–773

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee VA, Bridgen PJ (2002) The natural resource damage assessment deskbook: a legal and technical analysis. Environmental Law Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Z (2014) Judicial discretion on the environmental restoration. J China Univ Geosci (Soc Sci Ed) 14:20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu T (2015) China’s revision to the Environmental Protection Law: challenges to public interest litigation and solutions for increasing public participation and transparency. Geo Wash J Energy Environ Law 6:60–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y (2019) Friends of nature and public interest environmental litigation. Chin J Environ Law 3:225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu D, Xu H (2018) The politics of curtailment: multi-level governance and solar photovoltaic power generation in China. Environ Polit 27:852–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo CWH, Leung SW (2000) Environmental agency and public opinion in Guangzhou: the limits of a popular approach to environmental governance. China Q 163:677–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo L (2017) The problems and solutions of China’s environmental public interest litigation system. China Leg Sci:244–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma X (2021) Wetland restoration project costing hundreds of millions: how social organizations play a monitoring function. In: The Paper. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_13391734. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Ma X, Ortolano L (2000) Environmental regulation in China: institutions, enforcement, and compliance. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum K (2017) Changing landscapes: enforcing environmental laws in China through public interest litigation. Asia Pac J Environ Law 20:57–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElwee CR (2011) Environmental law in China: mitigating risk and ensuring compliance. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JG (1983) Private enforcement of federal pollution control laws part I. Environ Law Rep 13:10309–10323

    Google Scholar 

  • Percival RV, Goger JB (2001) Escaping the common law’s shadow: standing in the light of Laidlaw. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 12:119–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisinger W, Dougherty T, Moser N (2010) Environmental enforcement and the limits of cooperative federalism: will courts allow citizen suits to pick up the slack. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 20:1–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren X, Liu L (2020) Building consensus: support structure and the frames of environmental legal mobilization in China. J Contemp China 29:109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan E (2013) The elaborate paper tiger: environmental enforcement and the rule of law in China. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 24:183–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz J (2004) Environmental NGOs in China: roles and limits. Pac Aff 77:28–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y, Van Rooij B (2016) Prosecutorial regulation in the global south: environmental civil litigation by prosecutors in China compared to Brazil. Regul Gov 10:44–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitaraman S (2007) Regulating the belching dragon: rule of law, politics of enforcement, and pollution prevention in post-Mao industrial China. Colo J Int Environ Law Policy 18:267–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring J (2015) Chinese environmental group sues Volkswagen over emissions scandal. In: Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-china-idUSKBN0TY0CS20151216. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Stern RE (2013) Environmental litigation in China: a study in political ambivalence. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun Q, Tuholske J (2017) An exploration of and reflection on China’s system of environmental public interest litigation. Environ Law Rep 47:10497–10510

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson BH Jr (2000) The continuing innovations of citizen enforcement symposium: innovations in environmental policy. Univ Ill Law Rev 2000:185–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson D, Lu X (2006) China’s evolving civil society: from environment to health. China Environ Ser:27–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler Z (2006) Transboundary water pollution in China: an analysis of the failure of the legal framework to protect downstream jurisdictions. Colum J Asian Law 19:572–614

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2016) Green is gold: the strategy and actions of China’s ecological civilization. Reliefweb. https://reliefweb.int/report/china/green-gold-strategy-and-actions-chinas-ecological-civilization. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Van Rooij B (2012) The people’s regulation: citizens and implementation of law in China. Colum J Asian Law 25:116–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rooij B, Lo CW-H (2010) Fragile convergence: understanding variation in the enforcement of China’s industrial pollution law. Law Policy 32:14–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rooij B, Stern RE, Fürst K (2016) The authoritarian logic of regulatory pluralism: understanding China’s new environmental actors. Regul Gov 10:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang A (2007) The role of law in environmental protection in China: recent developments. Vt J Environ Law 8:195–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang AL (2010) Environmental courts and public interest litigation in China. Chin Law Gov 43:4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang AL (2013) The search for sustainable legitimacy: environmental law and bureaucracy in China. Harv Environ Law Rev 37:365–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M (2016) On the future development of environmental public interest litigation in China: analysis based on the relationship between administrative power and judicial power. China Leg Sci:49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang AL (2018) Symbolic legitimacy and Chinese environmental reform. Environ Law 48:699–760

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang L (2020) The battle between 200 green peacocks and 3 billion hydropower plant. In: Caijing. https://news.caijingmobile.com/article/detail/415666. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Wang AL, Gao J (2010) Environmental courts and the development of environmental public interest litigation in China survey of environmental tribunals and regulatory schemes. J Court Innov 3:37–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Xi D, Hou X (2018) 54.82 million in damages: the first case of government suing enterprise for environmental damages was decided. In: CCTV.com. http://news.cctv.com/2018/08/27/ARTIo7Y9i41XmKZ6tTtbJiZG180827.shtml. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Xie L, Xu L (2021a) Environmental public interest litigation in China: a critical examination. Transnatl Environ Law 10:441–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie L, Xu L (2021b) Environmental public interest litigation in China: findings from 570 court cases brought by NGOs, public prosecutors and local government. J Environ Law:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu X (2010) Analysis of the liability for environmental pollution—relationship between tort law and environmental laws. Leg Forum:17–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu G, Faure M (2016) Explaining the failure of environmental law in China. Colum J Asian Law 29:1–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang G (2005) Environmental NGOs and institutional dynamics in China. China Q 181:46–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang K (2021) When Lianyungang’s coastal dream meets migratory birds: who gives way when the snipe and the harbor are in competition. In: Southern Weekend. http://www.infzm.com/contents/210964. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Yuan Y (2020) Environmentalists call for ban on ‘electric earthworm machines.’ In: Sixth Tone. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1006023/environmentalists-call-for-ban-on-electric-earthworm-machines. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Zhai T, Chang Y-C (2018) Standing of environmental public-interest litigants in China: evolution, obstacles and solutions. J Environ Law 30:369–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang G (2019a) Results of the eighth “top ten public interest lawsuits in China” were announced. In: Legal Weekly. https://www.163.com/dy/article/ECVDV14B0512CN4M.html. Accessed 28 June 2022

  • Zhang H (2019b) Prioritizing access of renewable energy to the grid in China: regulatory mechanisms and challenges for implementation. Chin J Environ Law 3:167–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang R (2020) Towards a breakthrough in China’s climate change litigation: environmental public-interest litigation filed by NGOs. In: He X, Zhang H, Zahar A (eds) Climate change law in China in global context. Routledge, London, pp 162–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X (2022) Controversy over wetland restoration: protection or encroachment? China Newsweek

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang R, Mayer B (2017) Public interest environmental litigation in China. Chin J Environ Law 1:202–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Wang L (2012) Limitations of private law relief for injuries to natural resources in China and solutions. Law Sci Mag:56–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu M (2022) The rule of climate policy: how do Chinese judges contribute to climate governance without climate law? Transnatl Environ Law 11:119–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economic Law, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China

    Juan Chu

Authors
  1. Juan Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Chu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law School of Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, China

    Xi Wang

  2. School of Law & Justice, University of Southern Queensland, Ipswich, QLD, Australia

    Xiaobo Zhao

  3. School of Law and Justice, University of Southern Queensland, Ipswich, QLD, Australia

    Noeleen McNamara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chu, J. (2023). Regulating Through Litigation: Regulatory Functions of NGO-Led Civil Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China. In: Wang, X., Zhao, X., McNamara, N. (eds) Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26526-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26526-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-26525-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-26526-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation