Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procuratorates at the Crossroad: Performance, Controversies and Prospects of Procuratorial EPIL in China

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

  • 92 Accesses

Abstract

Procuratorial environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) has shown its vitality in addressing environmental concerns through the channel of PIL and gained momentum in China’s national agenda-setting. Procuratorial activism is signaled and revealed by mobilizing procuratorates at all levels, activating PIL in all types of litigation, seeking breakthroughs in new fields and replacing the role of gap filling with a paramount one in practice. It is noteworthy that the efficacy of procuratorial EPIL may be discounted due to its cherry-picking feature in case screening. Caution should be placed against procuratorial activism, which may risk crowding out NGOs by a turn of policy focus to criminal prosecution with incidental civil EPIL, and intruding administrative discretion by a comparatively low threshold to initiate administrative EPIL and tightened judicial review. Procuratorial EPIL needs to be founded on a rational design of procuratorates’ role in the overall EPIL system by coordinating between dual roles of EPIL litigants and the constitutionally entrenched role of legal supervision, which decides the design of the follow-up substantive and procedural details. Connection mechanisms among different types of PIL should be established to bring each into its full play and reach synergy thereof. Legal empowerment and top-down design should be adopted to reduce discrepancies and increase cohesion.

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 generally Gao and Whittaker (2019); Ma (2019); Zhai and Chang (2018); Zhang and Mayer (2017).

  2. 2.

    See Sects. 7.2 and 7.3 below.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 7.4 below.

  4. 4.

    See generally Xie and Xu (2021); Carpenter-Gold (2015); Zander (2018).

  5. 5.

    He (2018), p. 173.

  6. 6.

    State Council, Decision on the Implementation of the Outlook on Scientific Development and Strengthening Environmental Protection (关于落实科学发展观加强环境保护的决定) (3 December 2005) (Article 27).

  7. 7.

    The CPL of 1991 was first amended in October 2007. However, EPIL provisions were not included in this amendment.

  8. 8.

    The first environmental court was established in Guizhou province in 2007 and similar special courts were subsequently established in Jiangsu and Yunnan provinces in 2008. All of them have accepted some PIL cases brought by administrative agencies or NGOs, although without legislative support. Several courts have established PIL procedures on a trial basis. See Wang and Gao (2010), pp. 37–44; Zhang (2016), pp. 177–181.

  9. 9.

    Under the-then legislative framework, there was only one statute, i.e., 1999 Maritime Environmental Protection Law, prescribing that “departments responsible for maritime environment regulation and management” may bring compensation claims against polluters that damage maritime environment, aquatic resources and maritime protected areas (Article 90(2)). As a result, the scarcity of such statutes makes authorized organs rather limited in practice. Although marked as a breakthrough of the 2012 amendment, the number of EPIL cases turned out to be zero in 2013. See Lin and Wang (2014), pp. 157–174.

  10. 10.

    The qualifications of NGOs include the following: 1. registration at prescribed authority of civil affairs at the level of a city with districts or above; and 2. engagement of environment-protection-related public-interest activities for at least five consecutive years and with no record of illegal activity (Article 58).

  11. 11.

    See He (2018), p. 173. For more discussions on the hesitation of legislators, see Sect. 7.2.2.

  12. 12.

    Wang (2022), p. 168.

  13. 13.

    ALL (Article 61); Criminal Procedure Law (Article101) (Criminal Procedure Law as the legal foundation of incidental civil PIL is debated, see Sect. 7.4.1.2 below).

  14. 14.

    See Sect. 7.4.1.2.

  15. 15.

    The mandated authorities to sue include, see generally General Office of CPC Central Committee & General Office of State Council, Pilot Plan of Ecological Environmental Damage Compensation System Reform (生态环境损害赔偿制度改革试点方案) (3 December 2015) and SPC, Several Provisions of the SPC on Trying Ecological Compensation Cases (On Trial Basis)(最高人民法院关于审理生态环境损害赔偿案件的若干规定(试行)) (effective on 5 June 2019 and modified on 23 December 2020). For more details, see Ma (2019), pp. 275–276.

  16. 16.

    While other dissenting voices termed it “state-interest litigation” and placed it abreast with private-interest and public-interest litigation, see Lv (2017), most scholars insist that it should be classified as a special type of civil EPIL, see Bo (2020), p. 40; Li (2019), pp. 60–61.

  17. 17.

    For local rulemaking, see generally Jiangxi province (August 2021), Guangzhou city (September 2021), Zhuzhou city (December 2021) etc.; for joint meetings and co-signing of memos, see generally Chongqing city (June 2020) and Jizhou district of Hengshui city (September 2020).

  18. 18.

    Lv (2018), pp. 92–106.

  19. 19.

    Procuratorial organs are the only qualified plaintiffs to file PIL in the field of protection of heroes and martyrs. See Article 25 of the Law on the Protection of Heroes and Martyrs.

  20. 20.

    See Yu (2001), p. 16; Wang (2002), p. 42.

  21. 21.

    See Criminal Procedure Law 2018 (Article 3, 8, 243, etc.); CPL 2017 (Article 14), ALL 2017 (Article 93).

  22. 22.

    Chen (2002), pp. 3–4.

  23. 23.

    Xu (2017), p. 80.

  24. 24.

    Liu (2017), p. 10.

  25. 25.

    See, e.g., Liu (2017), pp. 10–11; Lu (2018), p. 33; Jiang (2015), p. 22; Wu (2018), p. 79; Zander (2018), p. 634.

  26. 26.

    Lv (2017), p. 249.

  27. 27.

    Zhu (2018), p. 3.

  28. 28.

    Zhan and Shi (2020), p. 76.

  29. 29.

    See, e.g., Zhan and Shi (2020), pp. 75–76; Lv (2016), p. 250.

  30. 30.

    See, e.g., Liang (2019), p. 132; Xu (2017), pp. 79–80.

  31. 31.

    Liu (2017), p. 13.

  32. 32.

    See SPP, Implementation Measures on the Pilot Project of Procuratorial PIL (人民检察院提起公益诉讼试点工作实施办法) (16 December 2015) (Article 25); SPC, Implementation Measures on the Pilot Project of People’s Courts in Adjudicating Procuratorial PIL Cases (人民法院审理人民检察院提起公益诉讼案件试点工作实施办法) (1 March 2016) (Articles 10 & 23).

  33. 33.

    Brown et al. (1998).

  34. 34.

    Xue and Yang (2013), p. 29.

  35. 35.

    Xue and Yang (2013), pp. 33–34.

  36. 36.

    Xue and Yang argue that Chinese administrative law has presented a mixed feature, termed “inner cracking”, with some indicators showing a subjective feature, for example, standing rules, and others showing objectively, such as the scope of judicial review. Such distortion results in the ineffectiveness of administrative litigation to respond to right claims of individual citizens and to guarantee the objective public law order. See Xue and Yang (2013), p. 37.

  37. 37.

    See Yu (2001), p. 16.

  38. 38.

    Liu (2018b), pp. 43–47.

  39. 39.

    Chen (2017), pp. 1214–1231.

  40. 40.

    See Li (2017), pp. 52–54.

  41. 41.

    For example, how the burden of proof should be distributed in PIL is broadly discussed by scholars. See generally Wang (2017), p. 91.

  42. 42.

    See, e.g., Li (2017), p. 52; Wang (2022), pp. 174–182; Gong (2021), p. 70.

  43. 43.

    Lu (2018), pp. 25–26.

  44. 44.

    Xie and Xu (2021), p. 449.

  45. 45.

    Data are from SPP (2018).

  46. 46.

    Data are from SPP (2019a), SPP (2020), SPP (2021).

  47. 47.

    The other three include protection of state-owned property, transfer of state-owned land use right and food and drug safety.

  48. 48.

    See generally Law on Protection of Heroes and Martyrs (2018, Article 25), Law on Protection of Minors (2020, Article 106), Law on Protection of the Status, Rights and Interests of Military Servicemen (2021, Article 62), Law on Protection of Personal Information (2021, Article 70).

  49. 49.

    Data are from SPP (2021), SPP (2022).

  50. 50.

    Data are from SPP (2017).

  51. 51.

    Data are from SPP (2019a), SPP (2020), SPP (2021).

  52. 52.

    Liu (2018b), pp. 39–46.

  53. 53.

    Lu (2018), p. 27.

  54. 54.

    For instance, Zhang Jun, the chief procurator of SPP, points out that it is the best and the most ideal way to protect public interests during the pre-litigation stage when he delivered the SPP report on PIL to SCNPC in 2019. See SPP (2019b).

  55. 55.

    See Liu (2018b), pp. 46–47.

  56. 56.

    Tian and Xu (2021), p. 18.

  57. 57.

    Liu (2018b), p. 47.

  58. 58.

    During the pilot stage, among 458 cases concluded by courts at all levels, there are 437 cases in which procuratorial claims are upheld. Among the remaining 21 cases, 15 were withdrawn by procuratorates due to rectification of errors or performance of duties by defendants, and the remaining 6 cases were dismissed due to resolution of disputes through mediation. It is fair to say that procuratorial organs actually never lost a case during the pilot stage. See SPP (2017).

  59. 59.

    See Tian and Xu (2021), p. 18.

  60. 60.

    Xia and Shang (2021), pp. 29–41.

  61. 61.

    Xia and Shang (2021), pp. 29–41.

  62. 62.

    See Tian and Xu (2021), p. 18.

  63. 63.

    Lu (2018), p. 26.

  64. 64.

    Data are collected through a search in the database of PKULAW by March 2022.

  65. 65.

    Jiang et al. (2020), p. 29.

  66. 66.

    Qin (2019), p. 91.

  67. 67.

    Qin (2019), p. 96.

  68. 68.

    Zhai and Chang (2018), p. 384; Gong (2021), p. 69.

  69. 69.

    Weng and Zhou (2017), pp. 218–219.

  70. 70.

    Zander (2018), pp. 615–628.

  71. 71.

    He (2015).

  72. 72.

    Zhang and Mayer (2017), pp. 213–216.

  73. 73.

    Lu (2018), p. 34.

  74. 74.

    Gong (2019), p. 138; Gong (2018), p. 32.

  75. 75.

    Gong (2021), p. 68; Gong (2019), p. 138.

  76. 76.

    Gong (2018), p. 32.

  77. 77.

    See e.g., Liu (2019a), p. 128; Chen and Zhou (2019), pp. 71–72.

  78. 78.

    Liu (2021), p. 33.

  79. 79.

    Liu (2021), p. 33.

  80. 80.

    Lin (2018), pp. 62–64.

  81. 81.

    Xie (2019), p. 98.

  82. 82.

    Jiang (2019), p. 11.

  83. 83.

    See SPC & SPP, Reply of the SPC and the SPP on Whether the Procedure of Pre-litigation Public Notice Should be Performed When People’s Procuratorates Initiate Criminal Litigation with Incidental Civil PIL (最高人民法院 最高人民检察院 关于人民检察院提起刑事附带民事公益诉讼应否履行诉前公告程序问题的批复), Fashi No. 18 (2019).

  84. 84.

    Liu (2019b), p. 83.

  85. 85.

    It should not be required to submit evidence that the civil PIL pre-litigation announcement procedure has been completed when filing a criminal litigation with incidental civil EPIL. See Liu (2019b), p. 83.

  86. 86.

    Liu (2018a), p. 87; Gong (2019), p. 136.

  87. 87.

    Cheng (2018), p. 119.

  88. 88.

    Li (2017), p. 59.

  89. 89.

    Lu (2018), pp. 30–31.

  90. 90.

    There are minor changes between the initial expression of the Recommendation Standard and the fixed one in 2017 ALL. The term “state and social public interests” stated in previous 2015 plan and rules were changed to “state or public interests” in 2017 ALL.

  91. 91.

    Zhang (2010), p. 18.

  92. 92.

    Lu (2018), p. 30.

  93. 93.

    Liu and Zhang (2020), p. 70.

  94. 94.

    (2017) Jing 0118 Xingchu No. 60, District People’s Court of Miyun District, Beijing.

  95. 95.

    (2018) Ji 2401 Xingchu No. 42, Intermediate People’s Court of Yanji City, Jilin Province.

  96. 96.

    (2017) Jing 0117 Xingchu No. 20, District People’s Court of Pinggu District, Beijing.

  97. 97.

    (2018) Ji 24 Xingzhong No. 104, Intermediate People’s Court of Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, Jilin Province.

  98. 98.

    Huang (2018), p. 112.

  99. 99.

    Liu (2021), p. 34.

  100. 100.

    Li (2017), p. 59.

  101. 101.

    Lin (2022), p. 80; Liu and Zhang (2020), p. 71.

  102. 102.

    Wang (2020), p. 141.

  103. 103.

    Liu (2021), p. 34.

  104. 104.

    Ma (2010), p. 96.

  105. 105.

    Zhu (2015), p. 113; Lin (2022), pp. 78–79; Wang (2016a), p. 64.

  106. 106.

    Gong (2021), p. 69; Gong (2018), pp. 30–34.

  107. 107.

    See generally Wang (2016b); Wang (2016a); Ma (2019); Gong (2021); Li and Wu (2016).

  108. 108.

    Wang (2016a), p. 55.

  109. 109.

    Wang (2016a).

  110. 110.

    Gong (2018), p. 30.

  111. 111.

    2015 Interpretations (Article 12); Interpretation of the SPC on the Application of CPL (Article 286).

  112. 112.

    Wang (2016a), p. 55.

  113. 113.

    Zhang and Mayer (2017), p. 225.

  114. 114.

    Bo (2020), p. 42.

References

  • Bo X (2020) From the ternary mode to the binary mode--on the reconstruction of litigation system for environmental public interest (三元模式归于二元模式——论环境公益救济诉讼体系之重构). J China Univ Geosc (Soc Sci Ed) (中国地质大学学报(社会科学版)) 20:34–47. https://doi.org/10.16493/j.cnki.42-1627/c.2020.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown L-N, Bell J-S, Galabert J-M (1998) French administrative law, 5th edn. OUP, Oxford

    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 (2002) Reflection and reconstruction of procuratorial power in China--analysis with public prosecution as the core (我国检察权的反思与重构——以公诉权为核心的分析). Chin J Law (法学研究) 2:3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen P (2017) Multi-layered construction of standing in administrative litigation (行政诉讼原告资格的多层次构造). Peking Univ Law J (中外法学) 29:1214–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen H, Zhou H (2019) Reflection on the nationalization of public interest litigation (公益诉讼“国家化”的反思). North Leg Sci (北方法学) 13:70–79. https://doi.org/10.13893/j.cnki.bffx.2019.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng L (2018) The negation of criminal incidental civil public interest litigation (刑事附带民事公益之否定). North Leg Sci (北方法学) 12:117–124. https://doi.org/10.13893/j.cnki.bffx.2018.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Q, Whittaker S (2019) Standing to sue beyond individual rights: who should be eligible to bring environmental interest litigation in China. Transit Environ Law 8(2):327–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong G (2018) An analysis of the joint mechanism of the public prosecutor’s “two litigation” in prosecutorial organization—based on the improvement of “interpretation of prosecutor’s public interest litigation” (检察公益“两诉”衔接机制探析——以“检察公益诉讼解释”的完善为切入). J Zhejiang Gongshang Univ (浙江工商大学学报) 5:27–34. https://doi.org/10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1337/c.2018.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong G (2019) Reflections on the positioning of the nature of environmental civil public interest litigation (环境民事公益诉讼性质定位省思). Chin J Law (法学研究) 41:127–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong G (2021) The nature and legislative perfection of public interest litigation (公益诉讼的属性及立法完善). J Natl Prosecutors Coll (国家检察官学院学报) 29:55–71

    Google Scholar 

  • He Z (2015) Will there be vexatious litigation in EPIL?(环境公益诉讼会出现滥诉现象吗?) China Environmental Daily (中国环境报) (4 February 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • He H (2018) How much progress can legislation bring? The 2014 Amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law of PRC. Univ Pa Asian Law Rev 13:137–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang H (2018) The analysis of essential standards of judicial adjudication in environmental administrative public interest litigation instituted by procuratorial authorities (检察机关提起环境行政公益诉讼的司法裁判标准研究). Law Sci Mag (法学杂志) 39:107–113. https://doi.org/10.16092/j.cnki.1001-618x.2018.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang T (2015) The system of administrative PIL brought by the procuratorial organs: thinking of a Chinese problem (检察机关提起行政公益诉讼制度:一个中国问题的思考). Tribune Polit Sci Law (政法论坛) 33:19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B (2019) Practical development and institutional consummation of Chinese environmental public interest litigation (中国环境公益诉讼的实践发展及制度完善). J Law Appl (法律适用) 1:5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang M, Yuan Y, Mou Q (2020) From zero to one and from one to fine: the difficulties of environmental prosecution public interest litigation and the solution--taking criminal incidental civil environmental prosecution public interest litigation cases of C city as an empirical research paradigm (从无到有与从有到精:环境检察公益诉讼的困局与破局——以C市刑事附带民事环境检察公益诉讼案件为实证研究范式). J Law Appl (法律适用) 18:24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H (2017) Approach to legalization of procuratorial administrative PIL (检察机关提起行政公益诉讼的法治化路径). Adm Law Rev (行政法学研究) 5:52–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H (2019) A study on the essence of ecological damage compensation lawsuit and related issues: an analysis from the perspective of environmental civil public interest lawsuit (生态损害赔偿诉讼的本质及相关问题研究). Adm Law Rev (行政法学研究) 4:55–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Wu K (2016) Role of procuratorates in the environmental public interest litigation (论检察机关在环境公益诉讼中的角色与定位——兼评最高人民检察院《检察机关提起公益诉讼改革试点方案》). J Renmin Univ China (中国人民大学学报) 30:2–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang H (2019) Procuratorial public interest litigation: logic, significance, omissions and improvement (检察公益诉讼:逻辑,意义,缺漏及改良). J Anhui Norm Univ (Hum Soc Sci) (安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)) 47:126–134. https://doi.org/10.14182/j.cnki.j.anu.2019.03.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin L (2018) On the space for system of procuratorial organs initiating civil public interest litigation (论检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的制度空间). Adm Law Rev (行政法学研究) 6:55–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin L (2022) A further analysis on the institutional space of civil public interest litigation initiated by the procuratorate--comparing with the scope of administrative public interest litigation (检察机关提起民事公益诉讼之制度空间再探——兼与行政公益诉讼范围比较). Adm Law Rev (行政法学研究) 2:77–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Y, Wang X (2014) Back to the start: EPIL in 2013 (2013环境公益诉讼回到原点). In: Friends of nature, green book on environment: annual report on environment development of China (2014) (环境绿皮书:中国环境发展报告(2014)). Social Sciences Academic Press, Beijing, pp 157–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y (2017) Judicial practice and theoretical exploration of procuratorial PIL (检察公益诉讼的司法实践与理论探索). J Natl Prosecutors Coll (国家检察官学院学报) 25:3–18+170

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J (2018a) The predicaments of the civil public interest litigation attached to criminal cases and their solutions (刑事附带民事公益诉讼的困局与出路). Polit Sci Law (政治与法律) 10:84–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y (2018b) Establishing the mechanism of objective litigation in administrative PIL (构建行政公益诉讼的客观诉讼机制). Chin J Law (法学研究) 3:39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Q (2019a) On non-conventionality of environmental public interest litigation (论环境公益诉讼的非传统性). Sci Law (J Northwest Univ Polit Sci Law) (法律科学(西北政法大学学报)) 37:123–132. https://doi.org/10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2019.01.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y (2019b) Study on synergy in criminal incidental civil public interest litigation (刑事附带民事公益诉讼的协同问题研究). Crim Sci (中国刑事法杂志) 5:77–91. https://doi.org/10.19430/j.cnki.3891.2019.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J (2021) On the function orientation and procedure optimization of environmental public interest litigation filed by the procuratorial authorities (论检察环境公益诉讼的职能定位及程序优化). J China Univ Geosci (Soc Sci Ed) (中国地质大学学报(社会科学版)) 21:28–40. https://doi.org/10.16493/j.cnki.42-1627/c.2021.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu W, Zhang F (2020) An empirical study on the illegal inaction of the administrative organ and its judgment in the environmental administrative public interest litigation (环境行政公益诉讼中行政主管机关不作为违法及其裁判的实证研究). J Soochow Univ (Law Ed) (苏州大学学报(法学版)) 7:68–77. https://doi.org/10.19563/j.cnki.sdfx.2020.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu C (2018) From judicial process to organization incentive: Chinese pilot of administrative PIL (从司法过程到组织激励:行政公益诉讼的中国试验). Stud Law Bus (法商研究) 5:25–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Lv Z (2016) Judicial rationality on environmental protection should not be overridden by the pricey compensation (环境司法理性不能止于“天价”赔偿). China Leg Sci (中国法学) 3:244–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Lv Z (2017) Providing legalized plan for ecological damage compensation system (为生态损害赔偿制度提供法治化方案), Guangming Daily (22 December 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lv W (2018) Study on the system for initiation of public interest litigation by procuratorates in China. China Leg Sci 6:92–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma M (2010) On the prosecution of administrative public interest litigation (检察机关提起行政公益诉讼制度研究). J CUPL (中国政法大学学报) 6:92–99+159

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma Y (2019) Vindicating environmental public interests in China: a balanced approach to institutional interaction in public interest litigation system. ELR 21(4):269–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461452919881342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin H (2019) An empirical study on the practice of administrative public interest litigation (检察机关提起行政公益诉讼的实证考察). Adm Law Rev (行政法学研究) 3:87–100

    Google Scholar 

  • SPC (2017) White Paper on Environmental and Resource Adjudication in China 2016-2017. http://www.cbcgdf.org/NewsShow/4856/2610.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPC (2019) White Paper on Environmental and Resource Adjudication in China 2017-2018. http://news.cnr.cn/dj/20190302/t20190302_524527648.shtml. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPC (2020) White Paper on Environmental and Resource Adjudication in China 2019. https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-228341.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPC (2021) White Paper on Environmental and Resource Adjudication in China 2020. https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-307471.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPP (2017) The transcript of the press conference of SPP in “To Comprehensively Enforce Procuratorial PIL”. http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/qyxwfbh/Document/1557150/1557150.htm. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPP (2018) Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (2017). https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/gzbg/201803/t20180325_372171.shtml. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPP (2019a) Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (2018). https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/gzbg/201903/t20190319_412293.shtml. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPP (2019b) Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on the Development of Public Interest Litigation Procuratorial Work at the Second Session of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress. https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/tt/201910/t20191024_435925.shtml. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPP (2020) Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (2019). https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/gzbg/202006/t20200601_463798.shtml. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPP (2021) Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (2020). https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/gzbg/202103/t20210315_512731.shtml. Accessed 25 Feb 2022

  • SPP (2022) Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (2021). https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/k3rMQwYhm12yfQc97XqVNA. Accessed 13 Mar 2022

  • Tian Y, Xu J (2021) A study on the precision of claim in environmental administrative public interest litigation -- an empirical analysis based on 540 judicial documents (环境行政公益诉讼的诉讼请求精准化研究——基于540份裁判文书的实证分析). J Nanjing Tech Univ (Soc Sci Ed) (南京工业大学学报(社会科学版)) 20:17–30+111

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang T (2002) On administrative PIL (论行政公益诉讼). Chin J Law (法学研究) 5:42–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang M (2016a) On the development direction of environmental public interests litigation: analysis on administrative right and jurisdiction (论我国环境公益诉讼的发展方向:基于行政权与司法权关系理论的分析). China Leg Sci (中国法学) 1:49–68. https://doi.org/10.14111/j.cnki.zgfx.2016.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X (2016b) On the legislative order of environmental public interest litigation system (论环境公益诉讼制度的立法顺序). Tsinghua Univ Law J (清华法学) 10:101–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang D (2017) The burden of proof in administrative PIL (检察机关提起行政公益诉讼的举证责任). Public Adm Law (行政与法) 10:91–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q (2020) The assessment standard for administrative omissions in environmental administrative public interest litigation (环境行政公益诉讼中行政不作为的审查基准). Tsinghua Univ Law J (清华法学) 14:129–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang C (2022) On developing a special legal system for public interest administrative litigation (独立行政公益诉讼法律规范体系之构建). Peking Univ Law J (中外法学) 34:165–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang A, Gao J (2010) Environmental courts and the development of environmental public interest litigation in China. J Court Innov 3:37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Weng X, Zhou X (2017) A study on the phenomenon of “executing the main and the punishment” in the pilot program of public interest litigation--also on the different responsibilities of the procuratorial organs in the two types of cases (公益诉讼试点中的“行主民辅”现象研究——兼论检察机关在两种案件类型中的不同担当). Soc Sci Front (社会科学战线) 11:218–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu S (2018) Theoretical analysis of EPIL brought by procuratorial organs: from the perspective of law and economics (检察机关作为原告提起环境公益诉讼的理论分析——以法经济学角度切入). Fujian Law (福建法学) 3:74–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia Y, Shang J (2021) Review and perfection of the adjudication mode of environmental administrative public interest litigation (环境行政公益诉讼判决方式的检视及其完善). J Nanjing Tech Univ (Soc Sci Ed) (南京工业大学学报(社会科学版)) 3:29–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie X (2019) Criminal incidental civil public interest litigation: institutional innovation and practice breakthrough (刑事附带民事公益诉讼:制度创新与实践突围——以207份裁判文书为样本). Crim Sci (中国刑事法杂志) 5:92–111

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Q (2017) Functional design and institutional construction of administrative PIL brought by procuratorial organs (检察机关提起行政公益诉讼的职能定位与制度构建). Adm Law Rev (行政法学研究) 5:77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue G, Yang X (2013) On China’s administrative litigation structure: “subjective litigation” or “objective litigation”?(论我国行政诉讼构造: “主观诉讼”抑或“客观诉讼”?) Adm Law Rev (行政法学研究) 4:29–37+78

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu A (2001) Research on administrative PIL and objective litigation (行政诉讼的公益诉讼和客观诉讼问题). Law Sci (法学) 5:16–17+37

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander S (2018) How effective a weapon is the new EPL in China’s war against pollution: the past triumphs and future challenges of environmental public interest litigation. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 50:605–636

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhai T, Chang Y (2018) Standing of environmental public-interest litigants in China: evolution, obstacles and solutions. J Environ Law 30:369–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqy011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan S, Shi Y (2020) On procuratorial organs’ litigation implementing power and role orientation (论检察机关的诉讼实施权和角色定位). Study Pract (学习与实践) 7:70–79. https://doi.org/10.19624/j.cnki.cn42-1005/c.2020.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z (2010) Administrative inaction in judicial judgement (司法判决中的行政不作为). Chin J Law (法学研究) 32:18–22+24–29+31–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z (2016) Empirical assessment of the specialization of environmental justice: environmental trial organ and mechanism-centric (环境司法专门化发展的实证检视:以环境审判机构和环境审判机制为中心). China Leg Sci (中国法学) 6:177–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Q, Mayer B (2017) Public interest environmental litigation in China. Chin J Environ Law 1(2):202–228. https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Q (2015) On administrative public interest suit brought by procuratorial organs: characteristic, mode and procedure (论检察机关提起行政公益诉讼: 特征,模式与程序). Law Sci Mag (法学杂志) 36:112–118. https://doi.org/10.16092/j.cnki.1001-618x.2015.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu X (2018) Consolidation and development of procuratorate system after national supervision system reform (国家监察体制改革后检察制度的巩固与发展). Chin J Law (法学研究) 40:3–19

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Administrative Law Department, Law School of China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China

    Yun Ma

  2. Law School of China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China

    Wenzhen Shi

Authors
  1. Yun Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenzhen Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Ma .

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

Ma, Y., Shi, W. (2023). Procuratorates at the Crossroad: Performance, Controversies and Prospects of Procuratorial EPIL 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_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26526-6_7

  • 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