摘要
《民法典》第1232条惩罚性赔偿条款是否限于私益纠纷下的环境侵权尚存争议。在制度发生学的回顾与探问中,不同时空的法律传统对惩罚性赔偿的立场存在差异,其威慑、激励功能的发挥也与严格的限定条件紧密结合。《民法典》第1232条能否扩大到生态环境损害,需经事实与规范之间严密的解释论证。不论是从文义解释的“被侵权人”解读、体系解释的逻辑关联还是目的解释下功能取向的对应分析,《民法典》第1232条的惩罚性赔偿都应限于侵权法框架下人身、财产损害的私益纠纷。惩罚性赔偿在环境侵害问题的适用立场不仅是一个规范省思的教义学问题,更是公法与私法规范寄生、组合的法律背景下应当如何匹配规范期望与制度机理、优化环境治理效能的制度考察问题。
Whether the punitive damages provision of Article 1232 of the Civil Code is limited to environmental torts under private interest disputes is still controversial.In the review and inquiry of institutional genesis,the position of punitive damages varies among legal traditions in different time and space,and the exercise of its deterrent and incentive functions is closely tied to strict qualifying conditions.Whether Article 1232 of the Civil Code can be extended to ecological damage is subject to a rigorous interpretive argument between facts and norms.Regardless of the interpretation of “tortfeasor”,the logic of systemic interpretation or the corresponding analysis of functional orientation under the interpretation of purpose,the punitive damages of Article 1232 of the Civil Code should be limited to private disputes of personal and property damages under the framework of tort law.The position of punitive damages in environmental infringement is not only a doctrinal issue of normative reflection,but also a question of how to match the normative expectations and institutional mechanisms and optimize the effectiveness of environmental governance in the legal context of parasitism and combination of public law and private law norms.
作者
潘承嵘
Pan Chengrong(Law school Wuhan University,Wuhan,Hubei 430072,China)
出处
《北京化工大学学报（社会科学版）》
2022年第3期60-66,共7页
Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology(Social Sciences Edition)
