The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also interpret other provision of this law in adjudicating cases. However, if the courts of the Region, in adjudicating cases, need ti interpret the provisions of this law concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People’s Government, or concerning the relationship between the the Central People’s Government and the Region, and if such interpretation will affect the judgment in the cases, the courts of the Region shall, before making their final judgments which are not appeal-able, seek an interpretation of the relevant provisions from the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress through the Court of Final Appeal of the Region. When the Standing Committee makes an interpretation of the provisions concerned, the courts of the Region, in applying those provisions, shall follow the interpretation of the Standing Committee. However, judgments previously rendered shall not be affected.
The present litigation began on July 14, 1971, upon the filing of a class action in Federal District Court of Colombia against the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Engineers to restrain them from initiating or continuing with the construction of the project. The named plaintiffs were two organizations, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF), a non-profit New York corporation whose membership consists of scientists, environmentalists and other interested citizens throughout the United States, some residing in the project area of Alabama and Mississippi, and the Committee for leaving the Environment of America Natural (CLEAN), a non-profit unincorporated association located at Starkville, Mississippi, whose membership is composed of Mississippi and Alabama residents who enjoy and are interested in preserving the natural environment of the Tombigbee region, and a single individual, James D. Williams, an assistant professor of biology at Mississippi. The complaint set forth seven independent causes of action charging that the defendants had violated various federal statutes as well as the Constitution by proceeding with the project.
Several distinct issues are presented in this environmental litigation. Broadly stated, plaintiffs contend that they should prevail for either of two reasons, viz. :(1) the actions of the defendants in recommending the Tennessee-Tombigee Waterway, and the decision to proceed with its construction, violate the substantive environmental policies of the nation as declared in §101 of the Act; and (2) the defendants, in their study and planing of the project and reporting and recommending it to the ultimate decision-makers (in this case the Congress and the President) failed to adhere to the procedures required by §102. For reasons that follow, the court holds that the plaintiffs, although possessing requisite standing to sue, fail on both issues and are not entitled to any relief on their complaint.
The evidence adduced establishes that Dr. Williams, the individual plaintiff, has used the Tombigee River for both recreational and scientific purposes, enjoying the natural state of the region in proximity to his place of residence; that CLEAN’s membership consists of 60 to 70 persons residing near the project area who fish, hunt and engage in other recreational pursuits made possible by the Tombigbee; and that EDF’s membership includes environmentalists, like Dr. Williams, who live close to the project area and make scientific and recreational use of the river. The common complaint is that their usage and enjoyment of the present environment will be adversely affected by the waterway’s construction. Given this facts, the standing of all named plaintiffs to maintain this suit under NEPA was clearly established by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct.1361,31L.Ed.2d 636, decided April 19, 1972. As organizations having those member who assert direct injury, EDF and CLEAN may represent those members in this proceeding. It is likely that EDF, when suit was filed July 14, 1971, had only one member who could claim a personal adverse effect from the project. Other persons suffering direct injury joined the organization after the Sierra Club case was decided and before trial of this cause. The objection to the standing of this particular organization is not well taken. Moreover, the action is properly maintainable under as a class action on behalf of all persons aggrived or detrimentally affected bu the project, and has been heretofore so allowed by this court.
（三）Please read the article and give the Chinese version.（15分）
The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies, who co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts. Trusts first appeared in the US railroads to discriminate on rates imposed and services provided to comsumers and bussiness and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could be dominate in different industries. The Standard Oil Company Trust in the 1880s controlled a number of markets, including the market in fuel oil, lead and whiskey. Vast number of citizens became sufficiently aware and publicly concerned about how the trusts negatively impacted them that the Act became a priority for both parties.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act declared illegal”every contract, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy,in restraint of trade and commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations”. Section 2 prohibits monopolies, or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize. Following the enactment in 1890 US court applies these principles to business and markets. Courts applied the Act without consistent economic analysis until 1914, when it was complemented by the Clayton Act which specifically prohibited exclusive dealing agreements, particularly tying agreements and interlocking directorates, and mergers achieved by purchasing stock. From 1915 onwards the rule of reason analysis was frequently applied by courts to competition cases. However, the period was characterized by the lack of competition law enforcement. From 1936 to 1972 courts’ application of anti-trust law was dominated by the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. From 1973-1991, the enforcement of anti-trust law was based on efficiency explanations as the Chicago School became dominant, and through legal writings such as Judge Robert Bork’s book The Antitrust Paradox. Since 1992 game theory has frequently been used in anti-trust cases.