随着社会的变迁,环境问题已经成为全球性的问题而引起了国际社会的广泛关注。特别是近半个世纪以来,环境受到了极大的污染和破坏,严重地制约着社会的发展。各国为了实现环境与经济、社会的协调发展,将环境工作纳入了法治化的轨道。近些年来,法学界为环境问题救济做了大量工作,关于调整环境问题的法律法规和理论已逐步形成。但是关于法院在环境司法实践中到底能起到哪些作用,或者说法院在环境案件中能做些什么的问题进行探索的甚少,因而笔者以此为视角予以粗浅的分析以起到抛砖引玉的作用。一、案情与问题原告:许昌市禹州韩城街道办事处四十里庄王玉亭等260户村民。被告:许昌禹州市铝厂原告诉称:“从1996年下半年至今,铝厂生产过程中排放的氟,给我村村民造成了严重的人身和财产损失,请求法院要求被告停止侵害,提供脱离污染环境的条件,赔偿损失710646元,承担有关诉讼费用25000元。”被告辩称:“原告的诉讼请求缺乏事实根据,原告所举的证据不能证明被告的排污行为与原告的受害有直接因果关系,请求法院驳回原告诉讼请求。”禹州市基层人民法院以双方当事人事先存在合法的污染赔偿协议为由,驳回原告人的诉讼请求;许昌市中级人民法院以原告未举出相应证据证明排污行为与损害结果存在因果关系为由,驳回原 With the social changes, the environmental issue has become a global issue that has aroused the widespread concern of the international community. Especially for nearly half a century, the environment has been greatly polluted and destroyed, seriously restricting the development of society. In order to achieve the coordinated development of the environment, economy and society, all countries have included environmental work in the orbit of the rule of law. In recent years, the legal profession has done a great deal of work on environmental relief and laws, laws and regulations on the adjustment of environmental problems have gradually taken shape. However, little is known about the role courts play in environmental judicial practice, or for the courts’ ability to do something in environmental cases. From this perspective, I give a superficial analysis to serve as a valuable guide . First, the merits and problems Plaintiff: Xuchang City, Hancheng Street Office forty Shili Zhuang Wang Yuting 260 villagers. Defendant: Xuchang Yuzhou Aluminum Plant Plaintiff complained: “From the second half of 1996 to the present, the fluorine emissions in the aluminum production process have caused serious personal and property losses to villagers in our village, requested the court to require the defendant to stop the infringement, Provide the conditions out of the polluted environment, compensation for loss of 710,646 yuan, to bear the relevant legal costs 25,000 yuan. ”“ The defendant argued: ”Plaintiff’s claim for the lack of factual basis, the plaintiff’s evidence can not prove the defendant’s sewage behavior and the plaintiff’s victimization There is a direct causal relationship, the court requested the plaintiff dismissed the request. "Yuzhou City People’s Court of the two parties to the existence of a legitimate agreement on pollution compensation grounds, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim; Xuchang Intermediate People’s Court did not cite the plaintiff The corresponding evidence shows that there is a causal relationship between the discharge behavior and the damage result, dismissed the original