The Burden of Proof in Environmental Administrative Public-Interest Litigation: Dilemmas and the Way Forward

Abstract

As a distinctive administrative-litigation institution, environmental administrative public-interest litigation represents a novel legal practice in ecological and environmental protection. In practice, however, there remain conspicuous legislative gaps concerning the burden and standard of proof, and judicial understanding of these issues diverges. This paper analyzes the practical dilemmas of the burden of proof in environmental administrative public-interest litigation—unclear allocation rules, difficulties in collecting evidence, and inconsistent standards of proof—and proposes corresponding improvements. It argues that the court should allocate the burden of proof among the parties flexibly in light of the professional and technical complexity of the environmental damage at issue, that general facts of infringement should be established under the ‘high-probability’ standard, and that relatively complex legal facts should be established with reference to the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard.