The safeguard mechanism for implementing the systems provided in the Regulations on Wetland Protection
4.8 The safeguard mechanism for implementing the systems provided in the Regulations on Wetland Protection
4.8.1 Definition and significance The safeguard mechanism is formulated for the purposes of ensuring the financing, publicizing, performance and supervision and ascertaining responsibilities of various systems concerning wetland protection. The safeguard mechanism is the basic guarantee and precondition for the smooth implementation of various systems concerning wetland protection.
4.8.2 Detailed suggestions (1) Suggestions on relevant financing guarantee People’s government at various levels shall integrate the wetland protection into the national economic and
social development planning and clarify the investing responsibilities of government at various levels. At the same time, we shall broadly try international assistance, encourage various social investing bodies to invest on wetland protection, absorb and standardize the utilization of social fund raising and individual donation and taking social funds in a large extent and establish an all-society participated investment mechanism for wetland protection.
(2) Suggestions on wetland related responsibilities
a. Suggestions on civil responsibilities therein: Efforts shall be made to address issues neglected by the General Principles of the Civil Law, the Environmental Protection Law and the Civil Procedural Law or where their provisions don’t apply to the actual situations of wetland, such as, whether the wetland environment contamination compensation covers the wetland ecosystem damages; the responsibilities caused by wetland contamination shall include restoring the environment functions of the wetland, the right to assess information on wetland environment contamination, the legal remedy of the harmed parties in the wetland environment contamination etc.
b. Suggestions on the administrative responsibilities therein: The administrative responsibilities of the opposite person for administration shall be ascertained. Special penalty provisions shall be formulated in accordance with the actual characters of wetland administration criterion and on the basis of the Administrative
Penalty Law, for instance, regulating detailed sums of financial penalty where wetland administrative criterions are violated, providing for the restoration responsibilities of the parties who bring damages to the wetland environment, and ordering relevant parties to stop the activities damaging the wetland. Administrative laws and regulations may be applied directly in other aspects.
When wetland administrative departments’ responsibilities are ascertained, they shall be determined in accordance with the clarified specific responsibilities of different wetland administrative departments and in
General analysis and recommendations on China’s legal implementation mechanism for wetland biodiversity conservation
accordance with the major responsibility elements, for instance, where relevant department, without approval, ratified the reclamation of wetland or changed the wetland for other use, or where the wetland rehabilitation is not carried out according to the wetland conversion schemes or other alternative schemes, the people’s government at the same level with the liable department or the superior people’s government shall investigate the administrative responsibilities of the person directly liable in the relevant department.
c. Suggestions on the criminal liabilities thereof: The Wetland Protection Regulations may, in combination with the Criminal Law, create a new accusal of Illegally Occupying and Damaging Wetland, so as to ascertain the responsibilities of those of illegally occupy and damage the wetland. Besides, dereliction of duties may apply to the persons working with the wetland administrative department, and the Regulations may, in its provisions, regulate that the Criminal Law and Criminal Procedural Law apply to the wetland responsibility investigation.
(Edited by Ryan)
(continued from Page 8)
In fact, it is the political motivation of a particular SWFs’ investment that could be questionable. But this has no incidence on jurisdiction. Therefore, it is quite likely that a ICSID arbitration tribunal would accept jurisdiction on a case founded on a BIT and in which the claimant is a SWF. By no means this jurisdiction necessarily implies that the defendant state will be condemned by the arbitration panel. But it certainly implies that it will have to justify before the tribunal the specific treatment reserved to the foreign SWF, and the motivations for it.