Comprehensive research on conflict resolutions in the field of international environmental civil disputes

作为国际环境争端的一种可能解决方式，国家承担责任是可能的。然而，国家往往回避其责任的明确，导致国际环境法中的法律的依据不明确。然后，它阻碍了国家对这些问题作出积极的承诺。恶性循环：民事诉讼与集团诉讼、法律的实证主义一起，沿着发挥着保障人权的重要作用。该制度的最大缺陷是很少转化为具体的权利作为执行的权利，在我国现行法律的体制下，由于技术上的问题，民事诉讼并不是最佳的解决机制。因此，我们需要研究通过谈判解决问题的有用性。相对于诉讼而言，当事人最大的优势应该是诉讼成本和时间成本。然而，当我们看到大规模的环境纠纷时，通过谈判解决并不总是最快和最便宜的方法。相反，好处可能是谈判为双方提供了更可接受的解决办法。无可避免的是，双方都有充分的代表，参加谈判的机会是有保障的。对于环境纠纷，要求具备处理复杂问题的专业和专门知识。由于诉讼具有澄清事实的价值观，当事人往往倾向于利用诉讼。因为谈判只是对冲突利益的调整，并不能作为真实的答案。

As one of the possible resolutions for international environmental disputes, the state may take responsibility. However the state tends to avoid its responsibility clear and it leads to the unclear legal basis in the international environmental law. Then it discourage the state to make its positive commitment to the matters. Vicious circle.Civil litigation, along with class action and legal positivism, playd an important roll to secure the human rights. The weakest point of this system is that it rarely turns into the concrete right as the title to enforce.Due to the tecnical problems under the current national legal systems, the civil litigation is not the best resolution system. Therefore we need to examine how useful the solution through negotiation would be. Compared with the litigation, the biggest advantage for the parties should be the costs including the cost of litigation and time. However when we look at the big scale environmental disputes, the solution through negotiation is not always the quickest and cheapest way. Rather the advantage could be the point that the negotiation offers more acceptable resolution for the both parties. The inevitable thing is that the both parties are well represented and that the chance to attend the negotiation is secured. For the environmental disputes, professional and specialized knowledge for complicated matters are requested. Since the litigation has an outlook that it clarifies the truth, the parties tend to use the litigation. Because the negotiation is just a adjustment of the conflicting interests, not as the real answer.