Study On The Relevance And Proof Of Responsibility Of The Plaintiffs Of Ecological Environmental Tort

As society has advanced and developed,environmental problems have attracted social concern and attention,and the number of environmental infringement cases has increased and their content has become more complex.The law establishes the burden of proof of relevance for the plaintiff in environmental tort litigation in order to balance the position of both the defendant and the original party in the suit.The application of the burden of proof of appropriateness,however,is not clearly defined by statute,and the particular nature of environmental tort cases,the justices’ understanding of the burden of proof of appropriateness is different.The burden of proof of the plaintiff’s relevance plays a significant role in determining causation,and it is only by properly determining causation in environmental infringement cases that a more just and reasonable trial outcome can be achieved.Hence the need for extensive research and analysis of the burden of proof of relevance.This thesis is divided into four parts:The first part is the introduction,to introduce the context of environmental tort plaintiffs’ subject matter selection of the relevant burden of proof,based on the characteristics of environmental tort cases,and introduces the theoretical and practical importance of studying and refining the burden of proof that is of relevance.Analyzing and summarizing research by domestic and foreign scholars on the burden of proof for environmental tort claimants,and analyse and summaries the system in order to gain a deeper understanding.The main innovation of this thesis is to clarify the connotation and application of the burden of proof of correctness and to perfect and complete the process of.The second part is an overview of the basic system theory is given.The first is to introduce legislative elaboration of the relevant burden of proof,to introduce reversal of the burden of proof rule,and its in-adaptability in environmental tort litigation,and present the legislative development to establish the relevant burden of proof in our country.The second step in defining the connotation of correlation is to analyze the unique characteristics of the burden of proof of correlation and its perfect meaning,and to compare and analyze the difference and connection between correlation and causality in order to more accurately capture the burden of evidence of association.The third section is an analysis of the current state and problems of the system in the country,and proving the existence of the relevant problems through a combination of legal cases.In judicial practice,the existence of correlation and confusion of causality applies,there is no typification of the case,courts rely too heavily on relevance identification,and so on.The primary legal reason is the vagueness of the standard for proving relevancy,the lack of methods to prove relevance,the failure to link the burden of proof of relevance of the plaintiff with the burden of proof of the defendant,and the inadequacy of the technical guarantee system for environmental trials.The fourth part is to put forward some suggestions for the improvement of the burden of proving the relevance of environmental tort plaintiffs in China.Firstly,it is necessary to define the criterion of correlation,and we can use the multi-level standard system to perfect the professional technical auxiliary correlation proof,and discuss the application of various methods of correlation proof on the rules of correlation proof.Secondly,effectively link the original and defendant’s responsibilities,clearly distinguish the burden of proving the plaintiff’s relevance from the burden of proving the defendant’s,and the order of proof.Finally,improve the professional technical guarantee system for environmental trials,clarify the role of judicial appraisal in this regard,use the appraisal opinions correctly and rationally,and set up a corresponding supporting system to serve the trial of environmental cases,so as to promote the improvement of the plaintiff’s burden of proving relevance.