Research On The Soil Pollution Dispute Case Of Friends Of Nature And The Green Development Association V. Three Chemical Companies In Changzhou

Soil pollution is cumulative,persistent and concealed,and its damage results are found to have a hysteresis,which need huge money to repair.Therefore,it is quit important to collect the person liable.Combing with the Soil Pollution Prevention and Control Law which enacted in 2008,this paper analyzes a typical soil pollution infringement dispute.The study finds that the rule of the person liable for soil pollution is still too wide.And it is difficult to solve the cases of soil pollution left over by history because of the lack of explicit application of the principle of retroactivity.Besides,too few provisions on remediation costs lead to inadequate funds for remediation.On the basis of analyzing and discussing these problems,some possible countermeasures are put forward in hope to solve.the problems of soil pollution remediation better.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the main body of this paper is divided into three parts:The first part briefly describes the facts of the case and sum up the legal issues,they are how should the person liable be identified in the disputes over soil pollution in the land that has been collected and stored,whether the principle of retroactive application can be applied in judicial practice to the person liable for soil pollution,whether the cost of ecological environmental restoration can be determined,and how the person liable should be responsible for the same damage caused?The second part is the analysis and discussion of the legal issues in this case.First of all,this paper analyzes the main body of soil pollution remediation responsibility under different nature of land collection and storage agreement;secondly,the paper believes that the judgment in this case actually applies the principle of legal retroactivity,and analyzes the necessity and rationality of the application of this principle;finally,the paper believes that the cost of ecological environment restoration can be further discussed,and analyze the cost responsibility of each person liable.The third part puts forward three aspects of enlightenment.Firstly,we should remodify the soil pollution restoration responsibility of the land reserve;Secondly,it is believed that the principle of retroactivity should be applied to the liability of soil pollution based on the consideration of public interest;Finally,it is considered that the relevant provisions of the ecological environmental rehabilitation costs should be refined,that is,to distinguish the ecological environmental restoration costs from the risk control costs.In order to guarantee the legal rights of those responsible for soil pollution,the polluters can be granted the right to recover the remaining costs and determine the principle of sharing economic responsibility for environmental restoration.