r51due

本篇paper代写- Japan's public nuisance dispute settlement mechanism讨论了日本的公害纠纷处理机制。公害纠纷是指由于工业或人类其他活动而造成的大气污染纠纷、水质污染纠纷、土壤污染纠纷、噪声、振动、地面下沉、恶臭气味等所引起的纠纷。公害纠纷处理机制是指拥有司法裁判权利的国家政府及机关对于被害者和加害的其他企事业单位发生的公害纠纷所进行的公正、迅速的处理制度。日本公害纠纷处理机制主要是根据 《公害纠纷处理法》和《公害调整委员会设置法》建立的，其中苦情相谈制度是日本公害纠纷处理的过程中国家或机关与被害人之间直接的沟通，具有比较高的效率，国家或机关从中采取斡旋、劝告等方式来进行处理。本篇论文代写范文由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

The "Tokyo air pollution case" is a typical case of "Japanese public hazards". Public nuisance dispute processing mechanism refers to the national government have judicial judgment right or authority to the victim and the harm of other enterprises and institutions of justice, a public nuisance dispute quickly processing system, the Japanese have independent of dealing with the public nuisance dispute mechanism: "public nuisance adjustment committee" and "prefectures hazards review", in the public nuisance dispute in Japan played a major role, and achieved good results, the mediation method and way is very worth our using for reference.

Public nuisance disputes refer to disputes over air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, noise, vibration, ground subsidence, foul odor and other disputes caused by industrial or other human activities. The mechanism of handling public nuisance disputes refers to the fair and rapid handling system of public nuisance disputes between the victims and other enterprises and public institutions by the government and organs with judicial power. The mechanism for handling public nuisance disputes in Japan is mainly established in accordance with the law on handling public nuisance disputes and the law on setting public nuisance adjustment committees, which includes the following two aspects:

On the one hand, Japan has set up a special agency to deal with public hazards disputes. The agencies dealing with public hazards disputes are divided into two levels: "public hazards adjustment committee" and "prefectural public hazards inspection committee". Panel is represented adjustment committee and prefectures hazards is not belong to the relationship between higher and lower, are classified according to the nature of jurisdiction and responsibility, prefectures nuisance panel processing range is small, public nuisance adjustment committee is mainly deal with major public nuisance dispute, both has the independence, and both are in accordance with the laws and regulations to build institutions, can be said to be the quasi-judicial bodies, including the power of the staff is similar to the judiciary in the power of the staff.

On the other hand, the "public nuisance dispute settlement mechanism" discussed in this paper is used in the trial and processing of the case and related procedures, such as good offices, mediation, arbitration, ruling; Later, the adjudication procedure was added, divided into liability adjudication and cause adjudication, which will be described in detail below. The above two kinds of ruling are not absolutely recognized, but the reason ruling is conducive to narrowing the scope of the ruling and taking corresponding measures in time, not only can a ruling determine the direction or result of the whole event, but also is conducive to reducing the burden of the parties. Japan also has the system of bitter talks in the mechanism of handling public nuisance disputes, which is also innovative and not involved in China. The system of bitter talk is the direct communication between the state or agency and the victim in the process of handling the public nuisance dispute in Japan, which has relatively high efficiency.

Since the 1960s, with the completion of Tokyo's entire transportation network and the rapid increase in the number of cars, the environmental pollution caused by automobile exhaust has become increasingly serious. Asthma, emphysema and bronchitis among people living near roads have become more severe, the Numbers have risen sharply, and some have died. In 1996, the families of more than 100 victims filed a lawsuit in court, and the Japanese government, the Tokyo metropolitan autonomous government, the capital highway corporation and seven automakers were named as defendants to compensate the victims for their losses and immediately stop emitting emissions into the area. Over the next few years, plaintiffs who suffered the same damages filed separate lawsuits against the same defendant. The number of lawsuits is as high as 6, and the total number of plaintiffs is as high as 633. Six years later, the lawsuit has finally been decided.

In the ruling, the defendant was ordered to pay damages to the victim and accept responsibility, but an appeal for "immediate cessation of emissions to the area concerned" was rejected. In terms of liability, the district court found that the defendants had failed to take effective measures to reduce injury to residents near the road. With regard to air pollution, it is very feasible to control the emission of waste gas by improving technology or conditionally limiting vehicle flow and setting realistic and feasible emission standards for vehicles. In determining the liability of the seven automakers, the court ruled that the automakers were not liable for damages because it was difficult to establish a causal relationship between the companies and the plaintiffs' damages in the evidence. However, the court also made it clear that carmakers should fulfil their corporate social responsibility and that their vehicle emission standards should be limited to those established by the ministry of the environment on nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter emissions. A concentration of cars in one area can lead to asthma or bronchial problems, or even more serious ones.

In this case, the court did not support the plaintiff's appeal to stop emissions because the roads involved in the case were wide and difficult to implement, and the estimation of the damage caused should not be compared with the measurement of damages. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants were dissatisfied with the Tokyo court's ruling, and two lawsuits were filed in 2002. During the appeal of the first case, the second to sixth case was heard simultaneously at the Tokyo district court. After the end of the first lawsuit, the court proposed a settlement to both the plaintiff and the defendant, hoping that the two sides of the original defendant could safely solve the problem. After a year, the plaintiff and the defendant finally reached a settlement agreement, and the dispute was finally settled. During the whole case, more than 100 people of the plaintiff died of diseases caused by pollution.

The settlement involves three main elements: first, the defendant funds the establishment of a medical subsidy system; second, the defendant must take environmental measures to control the exhaust pollution from the vehicles; and third, the problem of the settlement will be borne by seven automakers. On the compensation issue, the content of the settlement agreement includes: the state establishes the medical expense subsidy system to solve the medical expense problem of the contaminated patients. The government paid y6bn to a medical fund and seven carmakers y3.3bn. The capital highway paid 500 million yen. In addition, seven car companies paid 1.2 billion yen for the settlement.

The court decided that a better way to settle the dispute over Tokyo's air pollution case would be to settle. Because in the first lawsuit, the number of files in the appeal case was over 100,000 pages, the number of plaintiffs was very large, and the number of deaths was very large, and the content of the case was very complicated. There are also many controversial issues in the judgment of facts and causality. There are many unsolvable problems if the Tokyo air pollution case is dealt with directly by the ruling. The plaintiff is also satisfied with the settlement and believes that the content of the settlement is the result of the joint efforts of the plaintiff. But the plaintiffs argue that although the lawsuit is over, their desire to "be able to breathe freely and safely" has not stopped, and that a new round of "fighting" will begin. In the future, the plaintiff will make unremitting efforts to push the defendant to further improve the air pollution situation in Tokyo. To monitor whether the defendants have implemented pollution control measures to improve air pollution, the association of liaison offices for urban road traffic and environmental improvement in Tokyo will be formed under the settlement. The organization will be jointly established by the Tokyo metropolitan government, seven auto makers and state agencies.

Japan's law on handling public nuisance disputes and the law on setting up public nuisance adjustment committees clearly specify the scope of handling public nuisance disputes, the handling mechanism, as well as the handling methods and procedures mentioned above. To deal with public nuisance disputes "there are laws to follow". Specific contents include:

A public hazard adjustment committee was set up throughout the country and a public hazard inspection committee was set up in dudaofu county. The public nuisance adjustment committee is an independent administrative committee. The status of the chairman and members of the committee is guaranteed by law. The dudaofu county public hazards inspection committee shall consist of nine or fewer than 15 members, and the appointment and dismissal shall be based on the consent of the parliament. As the public nuisance dispute settlement agency is a dispute settlement agency, its behavior is similar to the judicial role between the parties to the public dispute, it must ensure its independence and neutrality. Therefore, the public hazard adjustment committee and the dudaofu county public hazard inspection committee exercise their functions and powers independently.

The scope of jurisdiction of the public nuisance adjustment committee is different from that of the public nuisance review committee established in dudao county. For example, the public nuisance adjustment committee participated in the minamata case and the Osaka airport noise mediation case; The prefectures set up a public hazard inspection committee to deal with cases of noise pollution, air pollution and water pollution caused by factory waste. The air pollution in Tokyo was apparently a major public hazard until the dispute was settled, which killed 107 people and damaged the health of more than 600.

These two specialized handling agencies mainly adopt the method of "mediation", and then make very careful and serious handling to prevent the further deterioration of most of the public nuisance incidents. It can be said that the mechanism of handling public nuisance disputes in Japan has achieved very good results.

要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due论文代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。