China is set to see its first lawsuit by an environmental interest group against a government department within a month, a local judge said Thursday.

On Tuesday, Qingzhen municipal people’s court in Guizhou province accepted the suit by the All-China Environment Federation, an interest group under the Ministry of Environmental Protection. [China Daily]

I have no special insight on this specific case, but I have often wondered (maybe even fantasized a bit, back when I was working for a firm that did litigation) what could be accomplished if the Chinese government was able to unleash the judicial system to assist with certain policy goals. Ralph Nader and U.S. consumer/product quality law in the 1970s always comes to mind when I think about this topic.

Certainly the environment is one area that could use some strong litigation, particularly in the area of torts. Others include product safety, medical malpractice (and other types of professional responsibility), and various other consumer issues.

I’m not necessarily advocating a U.S.-style approach, which does tend to get a bit out of control at times. Not much of a danger of that anyway as the rules and customs here are quite different, particularly with respect to evidence, discovery (or lack thereof) and damages.

No, what would be nice here is to use a strong, independent judiciary to check some of the excesses of powerful private enterprises as well as local governments.

Several complications to this.

First, Beijing would love to have another weapon in its arsenal to fight against local corruption and incompetence, but without a true national judiciary (I’m thinking along the lines of the U.S. federal court and U.S. attorney systems), courts tend to be heavily influenced by local actors.

Second, once you let the genie out of the bottle, it’s hard to put it back. If Beijing allowed too much judicial activism, litigants might start going after areas that Beijing would rather be left alone.

Third, to do this right, you would frankly need a much better (in terms of special training) judiciary nationwide than you have now. That’s changing, but we are still a long way off.

I think this remains as a “What If?” question for now, but it is encouraging to see these suits crop up here and there. Would be nice to see this kind of action brought by individuals or classes as opposed to a government-sanctioned interest group, but . . . baby steps.

Number one priority: invite Ralph Nader to do a series of lectures here at law schools, bar associations, and to groups of judges. Not only would that be good for China, but it would get Nader back to doing what he does best.