【正文】 charge remains a factor in criminality. C. Model III: Concrete Harm Crimes with Administrative Predicates The third model is Concrete Harm Crimes with Administrative Predicates (“Concrete Harm”). As noted above, this model has been added to Faure’s and Visser’s original approach. Statutes fitting this model are similar to Concrete Endangerment crimes in that they require proof that the actor violated an administrative rule. However, these crimes go beyond threats and require proof of actual environmental harm. The identification of crimes fitting Model III can be tricky, as it depends upon the definition of “environmental harm.” As we will show in Part 1 of this section, some statutory definitions focus on the environment directly, but others adopt an anthropocentric definition of “environmental harm.” These latter seem based on the premise that emissions or releases that threaten or harm human health, safety, or other interests must of necessity also harm the environment. To the extent that this interpretation is accurate, the “knowing endangerment” provisions of the CWA and RCRA are examples of Model III crimes. In addition, Europe provides a number of examples of Concrete Harm crimes. Because we are working toward a graduated punishment approach to environmental crimes, it makes sense to us to differentiate Concrete Harm statutes from the crimes in Model II. Concrete Harm crimes require proof of actual harm, and so it is logical for such statutes to impose higher penalties than those requiring merely a threat of harm. When the government can prove both an administrative violation and actual environmental harm, the authorization and imposition of increased punishment would be expected to further the vindication of environmental values through increased deterrence and However, Concrete Harm statutes run into conceptual and proof problems that can frustrate these goals. For one thing, the concept of environmental “harm” is difficult to define. A second problem involves causation. We will explore these in turn. 1. Defining Environmental “Harm” A traditional way of measuring environmental harm is to look through the lens of harm to human beings instead of focusing on the environment itself. One variation focuses on threats to human health or safety. A second variation is to focus on harm to private property. A final way to look through the lens of harm to human beings is to measure financial costs other than damage to property itself. At first, it may not be clear that statutes such as these vindicate environmental values at all. After all, the threat or existence of environmental harm is not an element of the crime—these results are not even mentioned. And yet, these statutes are part of environmental protection schemes. Their placement within such schemes leads to the conclusion that harm to humans is used as a surrogate measure for harm to the environment: if the pollution is extreme enough to threaten human interests, the environme nt must of necessity also be threatened. There are drawbacks to this surrogate approach. One obvious problem is that environmental damage might occur far from populated areas and thus remain outside the 4 scope of statutes that define harm in human terms. However, there is another, more serious drawback. Consider, for instance, the act of draining a wetland and filling it with soil or rocks. Elimination of wetlands may endanger human health and safety in the long term, for example by changing hydrological patterns, contributing to flooding, and so forth. However, eliminating a wetland does not present the type of shortterm danger that occurs, say, in a Bhopaltype situation where toxic chemicals are emitted into the ambient air. If harm to human health, safety, and property is viewed only in the short term, the actor who fills the wetland cannot be prosecuted for a Concrete Harm or Serious Environmental Harm crime。曼迪伯格 [比利時 ]邁克我們認識到，一個有效的環(huán)境刑法體系必須包含違反行政法的罪名。 福爾和馬喬蘭 相反，取得并遵守許可證，以此證明其遵守行政規(guī)定的單位，有時能獲得一種“許可證庇護” ( perm it shield)，它能保護單位不受刑法或其他強制措施的制裁。一方面，遵守了所有行政規(guī)則的單位仍然可能導致環(huán)境“損害”行政機關(guān)會為污染物與環(huán)境間的接觸設(shè)定一個“可接受”的底線。第一類可稱為“推定致害”。后者似乎建立在這樣的前提上 : 威脅、損害人類健康、安全或其他利益的排放行為也 必然損害環(huán)境。安全受到的威脅，另一種是關(guān)注私有財產(chǎn)遭受的損害，還有一種是衡量經(jīng)濟代價而非財產(chǎn)損害本身。一個明顯的問題是，環(huán)境損失可能發(fā)生于離人口聚集地較 8 遠的地方，因而超出了那些從人類角度 定義“損害”的立法的調(diào)整范圍。 立法機關(guān)必須制定一個純粹反映環(huán)境價值的標準。 違法行為的嚴重性。一個問題是，某個污染事件的影響可能在很多年里都不明顯，以致妨礙起訴。若一個罪名體系中缺少以實際損害為要件的罪名，那么它就混淆了不同罪名的嚴重程度?，F(xiàn)有的各種類型中，有些去除了“許可證庇護”，另一些從犯罪定義中去除了“非法性”要件，第三類則使用了傳統(tǒng)罪名。在很難或不可能證明因果關(guān)系的情況 下，只能認定較輕的罪名。在單個污染事件立即導致明顯損失的案件中，證明因果關(guān)系并非特別困難然而，在其他情況下，這一要求可能對公訴人構(gòu)成挑戰(zhàn)。 污染物與空氣水的接觸是僅有風險還是已成事實 。安全與財產(chǎn)所受的損害，那么填塞濕地的行為人不能以“具體損害”或“嚴重環(huán)境損害”類罪名遭到起訴，甚至“具體致害”類罪名也無法限制。若污染嚴重到足以威脅人類利益，環(huán)境也必然受到威脅。 1．對環(huán)境“損害”進行定義 衡量環(huán)境損害的一種傳統(tǒng)方式是透視人類遭受的損害，而非考察環(huán) 境本身受到的影響。 要確定哪些犯罪符合模型三是有難度的，因為這有賴于“環(huán)境損害”的定義。不過，該模型與第一種模型不同，因為這類罪名或者推定，或者要求證據(jù)證明，該非法活動產(chǎn)生了對環(huán)境損害的威脅。其次，更為重要的是，如果行政規(guī)則得到遵守，行政機關(guān)就能監(jiān)督這些單位的運轉(zhuǎn)，以保證發(fā)生損害的可能性減小。從本質(zhì)上來說，抽象致害模型只是將刑法算作一種強制機制，以保證檢查、文書、許可及其他意在規(guī)范污染排放活動的規(guī)則得到遵守。雖然主觀狀態(tài)在決定刑事責任時是一個關(guān)鍵要件，但本文只針對環(huán)境犯罪的行為要件進行分析。環(huán)境刑法主要對缺少許可違反許可或其他行政規(guī)制要求和條件的行為進 行處罰，一直都依賴于行政法 這種模式有嚴重缺陷 : 首先，如果刑法的功能被限定在處罰行政性的違法行為，其他類型的污染就可能不會得到處罰，這就限制了刑法保護生態(tài)價值的功能。 [or