On The Legislative Guarantee Of Technical Rules In Environmental Law

Technology is a core feature of environmental law.Environmental technical rules,as important technical carriers of environmental law,play an important role in environmental protection.Environmental technical rules not only include environmental standards in the form of technical specifications,but also supporting procedural environmental standards and laws to ensure the effective implementation of technical standards.Environmental standards and laws support the formulation,implementation,and management of environmental technology standards,and adjust the social relationships that occur as a result.Comparing China's "China's Air Pollution Control Law" and the United States' "Clean Air Law",the environmental technical rules of the two countries have significant differences in their meanings of integrity and spread.The technical rules in the United States environmental legislation are complete in meaning and the supporting measures are complete.However,China's environmental technical rules are conceptual in nature.The environmental law has a complete meaning and technical rules are relatively absent.The huge difference in the spread of environmental technical rules between China and the United States arises from the legislative paradox inherent in technical rules.The paradox of technical rule legislation means that it is indispensable,but at the same time it has high cost problems.Subject to the paradox of technical rule legislation,the formulation of technical rules has undergone complex legislative games,and has formed textual performances with different degrees of spread and precision in different countries,reflecting the different degrees of legislators' measurement of legal benefits among different subjects.The technical rules in China's environmental law are too extensive and are not suitable for the needs of current social development.They have weak guidance and restraint on the sewage discharge behavior of different subjects,and have a low degree of consideration for the affordability of different subjects.Therefore,it is necessary to transition the environmental technical rules from excessively extensive to moderately fine.The transition of environmental technical rules to moderate fineness is a process of improving the legislative guarantee of technical rules.The legislative guarantee of technical rules can be cut from two perspectives of entity and procedure,and the comparative analysis of Sino-US air pollution prevention law from the legislative text and legislative process of environmental technical rules.Judging from the legislative texts,the huge difference in the spread of technical rules between China and the United States is related to the degree of determination of the legislative traditions and environmental standards and legal norms of the two countries.In terms of legislative tradition,China's guiding principle of "should be coarse and not fine" is the obstacle to the transformation of technical rules from excessive coarseness to moderate fineness,which limits the completeness of the meaning of technical rules,resulting in excessive pollicization and conceptualization.The special,fine,and refined characteristics of the environmental single-line method create conditions for the refinement of technical rules and provide refined soil for technical rules.With the change of legislative background,China should moderate the connotation of technical rules and integrate and refine the technical rules in separate regulations.Regarding the certainty of environmental standards and legal norms,unlike the United States,which has adopted statutory laws to fix the supporting environmental standards and legal norms that guarantee the effective implementation of environmental standards,the substantial environmental standards and legal norms in China's environmental legislation are relatively absent.Technical rules lack supporting implementation measures.In practice,the randomness is large.The research costs of implementing technical rules by different actors have greatly increased,causing repeated waste of technical resources.Environmental standards and legal norms are an important part of technical rules.They should be fixed in written form and enriched and enriched to enhance their legal status.From the perspective of the environmental legislation process,the technical rules of China and the United States are very different in terms of ex ante assessment methods,subject drafting during the event,and post-event publicity and integration,which together form differences in the strength and accuracy of the technical rules of the two countries.In terms of risk assessment methods,unlike the United States,which uses cost-benefit analysis methods to collect scattered information through multiple means and multiple channels for risk assessment,the legislative assessment of China's technical rules is based on legitimacy and rationality.The shift from qualitative assessment to scientific quantification of technical rules helps to promote the transition of technical rules from excessive coarseness to moderate fineness.With regard to the composition of the drafting subjects,the differences in the professionalism and participation of the drafting subjects in the two countries reflect the different levels of scientific and public participation in the drafting stage.The commissioned drafting model of China's technical rules is not competitive enough.It is possible to use drafting as a profit-making tool and the diversity of drafting subjects is low.Attempts should be made to establish full-time drafting institutions to increase the participation of non-governmental organizations and the public.In terms of the degree of systematization of the public retrieval system,the US technical rules are easy to search through system integration,and China's technical rules are fragmented and there are search conflicts.The use of the Internet to establish a unified platform for technical rules and the formation of cross-references of related elements atlas will help reduce the public's compliance costs,including search costs.