本文選題：“限塑令” + 謹慎行事原則　； 參考：《西南政法大學》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 塑料袋在給人們帶來便利的同時,也會引發(fā)可怕的“白色污染”。為了減輕“白色污染”,國務院辦公廳發(fā)布了“限塑令”�！跋匏芰睢币唤浌�,就得到了社會各界的廣泛好評,一段時間內,環(huán)保呼聲高漲,公民的環(huán)保熱情持續(xù)升溫。然而,關于“限塑令”的合法性和合理性卻很少有人提出質疑;事實上,解決“白色污染”問題僅靠熱情是不夠的,我們更需要理性思考和科學決策。有鑒于此,本文通過生態(tài)學和經濟法學相結合的方法對“限塑令”展開研究,力求客觀全面地解析“限塑令”,進而為“限塑令”的技術合理性及制度走向提供一種理性的視角。 本文沿著“問題提出——微觀解讀——經濟法分析——建議措施”的主線縱向展開,暗含“觀念層面、技術層面、制度層面”三條支線,希望能夠較為完整、客觀地解析“限塑令”。 第一部分主要運用生態(tài)學知識,對“限塑令”的技術合理性進行解讀。本部分沿著“為什么禁止超薄塑料購物袋”、“為什么只向塑料購物袋收費”、“‘限塑令'頒布后所提倡的可降解塑料袋與回收利用的本意何以可能”等三個路向進行詰問,對“限塑令”在技術上是否合理性進行深層次的解讀。通過分析,得出了以下結論:超薄塑料袋并不是“白色污染”的“元兇”;如果只對塑料購物袋進行限制,則有可能造成更大的環(huán)境污染;“限塑令”出臺后的結果與制定政策的本意自相矛盾。本部分意在為第二部分的經濟法分析提供支持。 第二部分主要通過經濟法的方法對“限塑令”的合理性和合法性進行分析。通過觀念和制度兩個方面的展開研究,筆者認為:塑料袋的大量使用和人們的隨意處置,造成了嚴重的環(huán)境污染和資源浪費,而環(huán)境問題屬于典型的市場失靈的表現,市場調節(jié)機制本身不足以對其解決奏效,這就使政府干預成為了必然。作為政府干預的體現,“限塑令”就是在這樣的背景下出臺的。但是,“限塑令”的初衷良好,卻折射出了我國政府干預中的一些問題。這首先體現在政府干預中謹慎行事原則的缺失。這種缺失,造成了政府在干預環(huán)境問題時觀念上偏向激進的態(tài)度;技術上尚存合理性疑問的“限塑令”倉促出臺,正是這種“激進”的表現。其次,“限塑令”折射出的另一個問題,是政府干預的合理性和合法性未得到充分考量�！跋匏芰睢痹诩夹g上欠缺足夠的科學性且未能抓住治理“白色污染”的主要矛盾卻能夠得以出臺,即反映出政府干預對合理性的考慮欠周;“限塑令”由作為國務院辦公廳以“通知”的形式發(fā)布,卻被賦予了直接的法律效力,則反映出政府干預合法性存在疑問。 第三部分主要涉及的是解決問題的措施及建議。筆者認為,由“限塑令”存在的問題推演,今后政府在基于保護和改善生態(tài)環(huán)境的目的而實施干預行為時,應恪守謹慎行事的原則,尋求技術上可行且經濟的干預方案,切實完善和踐行生態(tài)環(huán)境保護的科學論證的制度。
[Abstract]:In order to reduce the "white pollution", the office of the State Council issued a "plastic limiting order" to alleviate the "white pollution". "Plastic limiting order" has been widely praised by all walks of life. For some time, the voice of the ring is rising and the enthusiasm of the citizen's environmental protection continues to rise. However, few people have questioned the legitimacy and rationality of the "plastic limiting order". In fact, it is not enough to solve the problem of "white pollution" only by enthusiasm. We need more rational thinking and scientific decision-making. In this case, this paper studies the "plastic limiting order" through the combination of ecology and economic law, and strives to be objective. Analyze the "plastic limit order" and provide a rational perspective for the technical rationality and institutional trend of the "plastic limit".
This paper, along with the main line of the "problem proposition - micro interpretation - economic law analysis - suggested measures", contains the three lines of "conceptual level, technical level and system level", hoping to be more complete and objective analysis of the "plastic limiting order".
The first part mainly uses the ecological knowledge to interpret the technical rationality of the "plastic limiting order". This part follows the "why the prohibition of ultra thin plastic shopping bags", "why the plastic shopping bag is only charged", "why the plastic bag and the recycling of the plastic bags are promoted after the" plastic limit order "is possible" and so on three directions " Through the analysis, the following conclusion is drawn: the ultra thin plastic bag is not the "white pollution"; if only the plastic shopping bag is restricted, it may cause more environmental pollution; the result and formulation of the "plastic limiting order" after the introduction of the "plastic limit" The purpose of the policy is self contradictory. This part is intended to provide support for the second part of the economic law analysis.
The second part mainly analyzes the rationality and legitimacy of the "plastic limiting order" through the method of economic law. Through the study of the two aspects of the concept and system, the author thinks that the large use of plastic bags and the random disposal of people have caused serious environmental pollution and waste of resources, and the environmental problems are typical market failure. As a manifestation of government intervention, the "plastic limiting order" is introduced in this context. However, the original intention of the "plastic limiting order" is good, but it reflects some problems in the government of our country. This is first reflected in government intervention. The absence of the principle of prudence has caused the government to take a radical attitude towards the interference of the environment; the "plastic limit", which is still reasonable in technology, is the expression of this "radical". Secondly, the other question reflected by the "limit plastic order" is the reasonableness and legitimacy of government intervention. The "plastic limiting order", which lacks sufficient scientific nature and failed to grasp the "white pollution", can be introduced, reflecting the lack of consideration of the rationality of government intervention; the "plastic limiting order" is issued as a "knowledge" form of the office of the State Council, but has been given direct law. The effect of law reflects the doubt about the legitimacy of government intervention.
The third part mainly deals with the measures and suggestions to solve the problem. The author believes that the government should abide by the principle of prudence and seek a technically feasible and economical intervention for the purpose of protecting and improving the ecological environment. The system of scientific demonstration of state environmental protection.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D922.68

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 陳泉生;宋婧;;論環(huán)境法的國家干預原則[J];當代法學;2006年05期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 郭哲;政府干預經濟機制研究[D];湖南大學;2007年

，

本文編號：1910843