Research on the Identification of Significant Risks in Preventive Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation

Abstract

Preventive environmental civil public interest litigation serves as a pivotal mechanism for transitioning environmental justice from ex-post remedies to ex-ante prevention, with the identification of significant risks being the core element for realizing its function. Current judicial practice faces three major challenges: ambiguous connotations, misalignment of identifying entities, and lack of standardized criteria, leading to inconsistent adjudication and limited preventive efficacy. This paper clarifies that significant risks should be defined as hazards characterized by high probability, temporal urgency, and severe consequences. It emphasizes that courts should take the lead in identification, establishing a multi-dimensional mechanism involving administrative agencies and experts, including . Furthermore, it proposes substantive criteria centered on realism, urgency, and severity, supplemented by dynamic review processes, categorical distinctions, and tiered evidentiary procedures. These measures aim to enhance the scientific rigor, normative clarity, and operational feasibility of risk identification while balancing environmental protection and economic development.