Comparative Study on the Definition Standard of "Interest" in the Determination of Plaintiffs Qualification in Environmental Assessment Administrative Litigation between China and the United States.

Tianxuan Chen

doi:10.54691/exqdty90

Comparative Study on the Definition Standard of "Interest" in the Determination of Plaintiffs Qualification in Environmental Assessment Administrative Litigation between China and the United States.

Tianxuan Chen

Scientific Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, (2025), Vol.7, No.12, pp.83-89

Published: December 8, 2025

DOI: 10.54691/exqdty90

PDF: Download Full Text PDF

Abstract

Chinas environmental impact assessment (EIA) administrative litigation narrowly confines "stakeholder interest" to substantive rights infringement, reducing the procedural environmental supervision rights granted to the public under Article 53 of the Environmental Protection Law to a mere "reflected interest." This fundamentally negates the independent legal value of procedural rights. Such judicial suppression conflicts sharply with the "enhanced effectiveness of public participation" mandate in the CPC Central Committees Implementation Outline for Building a Law-based Government (2021-2025), and contradicts the environmental supervision rights advocated by Article 53 of the Environmental Protection Law. Environmental administrative public interest litigation, compared with civil public interest litigation, places greater emphasis on preventing environmental damage from the source. It is a more effective way to supervise and restrain administrative power, and it attaches more importance to pre-emptive prevention than to post-event relief. By deconstructing the "procedural harm" standard and institutional constraints in U.S. case law, this paper explores a doctrinal path and collaborative framework for incorporating Chinas environmental supervision rights into the scope of stakeholder interest. This approach aims to steer EIA litigation toward governance transformation that balances substantive compliance with procedural justice.

Keywords: Environmental Assessment Litigation; Environmental Supervision Power; Procedural Rights.

APA Citation: Tianxuan Chen (2025). Comparative Study on the Definition Standard of "Interest" in the Determination of Plaintiffs Qualification in Environmental Assessment Administrative Litigation between China and the United States.. Scientific Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(12), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.54691/exqdty90

References

Zhang, C. J. (2022) How to judge Third-Party Plaintiff Qualification in EIA Administrative Litigation. Hebei Law Science, 40(6): 125-127.
Wu, Y. (2021). Defining ‘Legal Interest’ in Environmental Impact Assessment Litigation: From Neighbor Rights to Environmental Interests. Chongqing University Journal (Social Science Edition), 27(3): 189–190.
Joseph Sax. (1971) Defending the Environment: A Strategy for Citizen Action. New York: Knopf.
Chen Ruihua. (2018). Theory of Procedural Justice. China Legal Publishing House, Beijing.
Jin Zining, Liu Lihao. (2017) Improving the Judicial Review Mechanism for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of Zhongzhou Studies,2;57-60.
Cai Shouqiu, (2013) From Environmental Rights to the State's Obligation of Environmental Protection and Environmental Public Interest Litigation. Modern Law Science, 35(6): 3-21.
Zhang Luping. (2018) The Functional Positioning and Institutional Construction of Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation Initiated by the Procuratorial Organs. Academic World,1: 137-149.
Cao Xinyang, (2025) Yang Guihong. Research on the Plaintiff Qualification in Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation in China. Dispute Resolution, 11(7): 228-235.