| With the expansion of the environmental crisis and risk, environmental governancehas increasingly become the core task of the development of modern society. It relatesto the construction of a country’s legal system and it is also closely linked with theoperation of these systems; more important, it also linked with a country’s socialgovernance model and the constitutional system and the power structure lies behind. Inthe past decades, China’s environmental governance work has developed steadily andhas achieved fruitful results. But it is undeniable that there is still a big gap betweenthese achievements and “ought to target” in environmental protection. Analysis of thereasons for this situation, there is an explanation path among academia that “legalabsence caused governance chaos” as the core of legal constructivism; they are trying touse “system absence-system construction” approach, try to include all aspects ofenvironmental protection within legal norms, to construct a coverall environmental legalsystem.But that is not the case. Under flourishing development of Chinese environmentallegal system, the dilemma of environmental governance is, to some extent, equivalent tothe dilemma of national environmental laws running; therefore, exploring the causes ofthe governance system chaos should be start from the system logic of laws running.Starting from the system logic of environmental governance to seek for causes andbreakthroughs of governance dilemma has constituted the core task of the currentenvironmental law’s “Return to basic and open for new”. The same time, due to thecurrent social governance mode is based on state power centered "authority type"governance paradigm, the touches of power extended to all aspects of social affairs.Therefore, the explanation of current environmental governance and analysis of furtherreconstruction should be expanded in this domain. This paper is, under this condition,hold the argument on conversion of environmental governance paradigm, and based ontriple logic of country, the bureaucracy and the public in environmental governance,analyzing dilemmas in practice and causes of authority type environmental governance;then put forward an alternative plan called “environmental public governance”, andanalyze its frame structure and paradigm model which involved public participation.The paper is divided into six chapters:Chapter one. Introduction. The paper points out that the current research among academia on environmental governance did not find roots, and the key to environmentalgovernance research is to analyze how environmental issues from the specific form ofsocial issues converted into public policy issues, as well as how it should be includedinto the institutionalized agenda of system after entering into the public policy. On thisbasis, the significance in the study of China’s environmental governance system logicand its mode lies: it not only help to clarify the basic logic running of the currentChinese environmental governance, system constraints and institutional dilemmas, andit is also beneficial to clarify the future direction of China’s environmental affairsgovernance.Chapter two. The evolution and logic of public affairs governance. The paperanalyzes the changing rules of social governance with the evolution of political system,and the theoretical premise of reflection and future reconstruction of the currentenvironmental governance. Specific analysis of the four governance modes, that is, theruling governance mode, the management governance mode, the service-orientedgovernance mode, the multi-center governance mode, and simply conclude the basiccontext of this evolution.Chapter three. Environmental governance under China’s Perspective:authority type paradigm institutional logic. This paper points out china’s socialgovernance is authority type paradigm; it makes Chinese social affairs presentingdifferent forms of governance paradox, that is, the paradox between modernization andindividual rights, legislation and the rule of law, public domain and the state power,transformation and social justice. Under Chinese perspective, like other social affairs,the authority type social governance paradigm also embedded among environmentalgovernance, whose appearance in the field of environmental affairs has become the rootcausing harassment in the Chinese environmental practice. The effectiveness ofenvironmental governance is restricted by interactions between individuals,organizations, and groups occupying different interests; moreover, different behaviorshave constrained by the institutional logic of their domain. Under authority typeparadigm, the effectiveness and future of environmental governance is decided by thetriple system logic and its interactions of the countries, bureaucratic power and thepublic involved.Chapter four. The actual form and its causes of authority typeenvironmental governance. The part pointed out the various reality dilemmaspresented in authority type environmental governance under the guidance of the institutional logic, such as “rights law conflicts” and obscurity of laws,“nothinghappens logic” and the campaign-style environmental enforcement, locally “versatility”and “suspension” of environmental law, collusion and capture of interests, publicdefenders evolved into large-scale environmental events, environmental NGOs’awkward position and selective aphasia, etc.. Furthermore, explain how theenvironmental law failed under the authority type system based on the triple relations ofnation and local area, power and public, power and the rule of law.Chapter five. The road leading to public governance: environmental publicgovernance framework and its implementation. The part is a trial construction on thebasis of reflection and criticism, propose concept of environmental public governance,and on the basis of environmental public ethic, environmental community law toconstruct a network, diversified and ultra-stable cooperative governance mode. Intendedto achieve this ultra-stable governance mode of environmental public governance, weshould focus on to set up the ideal cooperative normative model, establish related checkand balance mechanism, cooperative partnerships and multiple strategy tools, to playthe function of soft law mechanism, shaping the citizen environmental obligationconcept, mutual individual actors returned.Chapter six. Conclusion. The part points out that cooperation, participation,consultation, communication and mutual trust in environmental public governanceshould be under legal constraints.This paper is follow the “social-political-system” analysis path, relied upon thegrand background of China’s political, social, cultural and economic factors, viaexplanation about “problem” processing and structure of China’s environmentalgovernance, combing some current theoretical resources and practice of China’s currentauthority type mode, and put forward a new governance paradigm-the environmentalpublic governance. From this approach, the paper insisted methodological pluralism,both in the interpretation based on observation and value for reference, also relying onthe empirical analysis on the material; either use sociology, political science, economicsanalysis framework, pay more attention to the more general sense paradigm of law. Putthe theoretical analysis and empirical studies, empirical research and normative analysis,descriptive means and review system together, making good use of them. |
