本文選題：赤道原則 + 綠色信貸��； 參考：《中國政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著赤道原則和企業(yè)社會責任的興起,貸款人在環(huán)境保護中的作用逐步受到重視。然而目前貸款人信貸環(huán)保責任多體現(xiàn)為一種企業(yè)社會責任,以貸款人的自愿履行為基礎(chǔ),有必要將此種責任上升至法律責任層面,亦即環(huán)境社會責任的法律化。貸款人在信貸領(lǐng)域的法律責任來源于赤道原則,蘊含了環(huán)境法要求法律主體從“經(jīng)濟人”向“生態(tài)人”轉(zhuǎn)變的立法理念,也體現(xiàn)了侵權(quán)法風險分配的功能,有利于實現(xiàn)環(huán)境損害負外部性的內(nèi)化和環(huán)境風險的預防,同時將貸款人作為污染關(guān)系人概念的引入也有利于解決土壤污染等環(huán)境污染治理的歷史遺留問題。貸款人環(huán)保社會責任的法律化主要通過兩種形式實現(xiàn):一是違反信貸環(huán)保規(guī)定的行政責任,即貸款人在從事信貸業(yè)務時,違反有關(guān)金融監(jiān)管以及信貸環(huán)保的法律法規(guī)而應承擔的法律上的不利后果。在構(gòu)成要件上,責任承擔的主體限定在銀行業(yè)金融機構(gòu),責任追究的主要主體是法律法規(guī)授權(quán)的銀行業(yè)監(jiān)督管理機構(gòu),體現(xiàn)的是銀監(jiān)會等金融監(jiān)管機構(gòu)與貸款人間的監(jiān)管關(guān)系,而非環(huán)保部門對銀行的環(huán)境管理關(guān)系,即此種行政責任并非環(huán)境行政責任;其次,在違法性要件上,是商業(yè)銀行在授信過程中違反有關(guān)信貸環(huán)保法規(guī)與政策以及金融監(jiān)管法律,在我國信貸環(huán)保法規(guī)主要指《貸款通則》、《綠色信貸指引》等于有關(guān)金融“軟法”,并配合金融監(jiān)管“硬法”,通過軟硬結(jié)合作為問責依據(jù);再次,主觀要件上主張在貸款人違反信貸環(huán)保規(guī)定的行政責任認定中采取過錯歸責原則,但非主觀過錯論而采客觀過錯論。二是環(huán)境民事侵權(quán)責任,該責任的構(gòu)成要件分析是建立在對貸款人污染行為與污染關(guān)系人身份的劃分基礎(chǔ)之上:對于污染行為人,在擔保利益實現(xiàn)前,貸款人作為擔保物權(quán)人為了擔保利益參對擔保物進行適當監(jiān)管,當達到參與管理并有能力對借款人污染行為其實質(zhì)性作用時,與借款人構(gòu)成共同侵權(quán),承擔連帶責任;擔保利益實現(xiàn)后,擔保人作為擔保物(如污染場地或其他污染源)的經(jīng)營人、使用人時實施污染行為,則為貸款人的單獨責任。貸款人作為污染行為人的環(huán)境民事責任與一般的環(huán)境民事責任在歸責原則、主觀要件、行為、免責事由、賠償原則與限額等方面并無二致,所不同的是可以憑借其擔保物權(quán)人的特殊身份而享有擔保利益豁免。此外,環(huán)境污染潛伏期長與我國法定環(huán)境侵權(quán)訴訟時效長度間的不協(xié)調(diào),出于填補損害和解決歷史遺留的污染問題之目的,本文主張之后的土壤污染防治法或其他司法解釋中涉及的有關(guān)貸款人環(huán)境民事責任條款應當具有溯及既往的效力。對于污染關(guān)系人,即擔保利益實現(xiàn)后擔保物的管理人、占有人,承擔的是一種占有人責任,責任來源于對安全保障義務的違反,因而與一般的環(huán)境民事責任相比尤具特殊性。在歸責原則上采過錯歸責,由于屬于不作為侵權(quán),因而必須在主觀要件上要求過錯,但這種法人或組織的過錯判定并非指主觀心理狀態(tài),而是一種客觀過錯,即對法定義務的違反;在行為要件上,貸款人作為污染關(guān)系人期間沒有履行檢視、監(jiān)督、報告以及采取適當措施防治污染或可能發(fā)生的污染;在免責事由上,除了可適用污染行為人一般環(huán)境民事責任抗辯理由外,還可以主觀上無過錯免責;在賠償限額的設(shè)定上,由于其安全保障義務背后的理論依據(jù)之一是收益與風險相一致要求,因而除了將對特定主體的民事權(quán)益損害和環(huán)境利益損害外,還應將貸款人在信貸業(yè)務中的獲益納入考量因素,最為直接的方式是以貸款人與借款人間借款合同確定的貸款金額百分比確定。在責任承擔順位上,將貸款人作為第二順位責任人,即在環(huán)境侵權(quán)的污染行為人責任承擔不可能情形下,要求作為污染關(guān)系人的貸款人承擔損害賠償責任。在新法溯及力問題上本文主張對污染關(guān)系人沒有溯及力,因為安全保障義務的另一理論依托是危險控制理論,因而在污染發(fā)生或發(fā)現(xiàn)時特定義務履行只能是能夠控制該危險的主體,即當下作為污染關(guān)系人的貸款人。
[Abstract]:With the rise of equatorial principle and corporate social responsibility, the lender's role in environmental protection is gradually paid attention to. However, at present, the liability of lender's credit environmental protection is a kind of corporate social responsibility, which is based on the voluntary performance of the lender. It is necessary to raise such responsibility to the level of legal responsibility, that is, the law of environmental social responsibility. The legal responsibility of the lender in the credit field comes from the equatorial principle, which contains the legislative idea that the environmental law requires the legal subject to change from the "economic man" to the "ecological man", and also embodies the function of the risk distribution of the tort law, which is beneficial to the realization of the internalization of the negative externality of the environmental damage and the prevention of the environmental risk, and the lender is used as the lender. The introduction of the concept of pollution related people is also conducive to solving the problems left over from the history of environmental pollution control, such as soil pollution. The legalization of the lender's environmental social responsibility is mainly realized in two forms: one is the administrative responsibility that violates the regulations of the credit and environmental protection, that is, the lender violates the relevant financial supervision and the credit ring when he is engaged in the credit business. In the constitutive requirements, the main body of the responsibility is limited to the banking financial institutions. The main body of the responsibility investigation is the banking supervisory authority authorized by the laws and regulations, which embodies the regulatory relationship between the banking regulatory agency and the loan people, and not the environmental protection department. The relationship between the bank's environmental management, that is, this kind of administrative responsibility is not the environmental administrative responsibility. Secondly, in the illegality, the commercial bank violates the relevant regulations and policies of the credit, the policy and the financial supervision law in the process of credit. In our country, the credit environmental regulations mainly refer to the general rule of loan and money, and the green credit guide is equal to the financial "soft". "Law", and combined with the "hard law" of financial supervision, through the combination of soft and hard as the basis for accountability; again, the subjective elements of the lender in the administrative responsibility of the credit protection of the administrative responsibility to adopt the principle of fault imputation, but not subjective fault theory and the objective fault theory. Two is the civil tort liability in the environment, the constitutive requirements of the liability analysis is On the basis of the division of the person's identity of the lender's pollution behavior and pollution: for the polluter, the lender, as the guarantor of the security interests before the guarantee is realized, is properly supervised for the guaranty for the benefit of the guaranty, and when it is involved in the management and has the ability to act in a substantive effect on the borrower's pollution, the borrower is with the borrower. To constitute joint torts and undertake joint and several liability; after the realization of the security interest, the guarantor, as the operator of a guarantor (such as a contaminated site or other source of pollution), is the sole responsibility of the lender for the use of the person when using the person. The lender, as a polluter's environmental civil liability and the general environmental civil liability, is subject to the principle of imputation. The elements, actions, disclaimers, the principle of compensation and the limit are different, and the difference is that they can enjoy the guarantee benefit exemption by virtue of their special identity of the real right of security. In addition, the latent period of environmental pollution is incompatible with the limitation length of the legal environmental tort litigation in our country, in order to fill the damage and solve the pollution left over by the history. The purpose of the problem is that the provisions concerning the civil liability of the lender related to the soil pollution prevention and control law or other judicial interpretations should have the effect of retroactive effect. The violation of the full guarantee obligation is especially special compared with the general environmental civil liability. The fault attribution in the principle of imputation, because it belongs to the nonfeasance tort, must ask for the fault on the subjective element, but the fault judgment of the legal person or organization is not the subjective state of mind, but a kind of objective fault, that is, the legal obligation. In the case of behavior, the lender did not perform the inspection, supervision, report and appropriate measures to prevent pollution or possible pollution during the period of the relationship between the polluter; in the case of disclaimer, there is no fault exemption in addition to the reasons for the civil liability for civil liability in the general environment of the polluter, and the limit of compensation. As one of the theoretical bases behind its security obligation is the agreement between the income and the risk, in addition to the damage to the civil rights and interests of the specific subject and the damage to the environmental interests, the lender should be included in the consideration of the benefit of the credit business. The most direct way is to borrow the borrower from the borrower. With the determined percentage of the loan amount, the lender should be required as the lender of the polluter to bear the liability for damages under the circumstances of the liability of the polluter of the environmental tort, in the case of the responsibility undertook. In the new law and force, the author claims that the lender will not be the second of the polluter. Retroactivity, because another theory of security obligation is based on the theory of risk control, so that the specific obligation to perform at the time of pollution or discovery is only the subject that can control the risk, that is, the lender of the present as a pollute.

【學位授予單位】：中國政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.281

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 王燦發(fā);傅學良;;論我國《環(huán)境保護法》的修改[J];中國地質(zhì)大學學報(社會科學版);2011年03期

2 肖宏;;商業(yè)銀行何以承擔環(huán)境責任[J];環(huán)境保護;2007年07期

3 于東智;吳羲;;赤道原則:銀行綠色信貸與可持續(xù)發(fā)展的“白皮書”[J];金融管理與研究;2009年01期

4 周一虹;陳文文;;企業(yè)環(huán)境信息披露與綠色信貸[J];綠色財會;2007年09期

5 張銜;肖斌;;企業(yè)社會責任的依據(jù)與維度[J];四川大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2010年02期

6 關(guān)保英;;論行政責任的法律基礎(chǔ)[J];社會科學家;2007年03期

7 熊學萍;傳統(tǒng)金融向綠色金融轉(zhuǎn)變的若干思考[J];生態(tài)經(jīng)濟;2004年11期

，

本文編號：1802809