1. The article discusses the current reality of administrative criminal responsibility competition in environmental public interest litigation, including the disproportionate growth of referrals and cases, as well as the complexity of competition situations.
2. The article proposes a solution to this problem by raising the legal status of referrals, clarifying the attribution of administrative penalties before and after referrals, and improving the judgment path with an exception for double punishment in cases of "first crime then punishment".
3. The article concludes by emphasizing that environmental public interest litigation should be given more attention in order to ensure justice is served.
The article is generally reliable and trustworthy due to its clear structure and comprehensive analysis. It provides a detailed overview of the current situation regarding administrative criminal responsibility competition in environmental public interest litigation, as well as potential solutions to this issue. The author also provides evidence for their claims and explores counterarguments where necessary. Furthermore, they present both sides equally without any bias or partiality.
However, there are some areas which could be improved upon. For example, while the author does provide evidence for their claims, they do not explore all possible risks associated with their proposed solutions or consider other points of view which may differ from their own. Additionally, there is no mention of promotional content or unsupported claims within the article itself; however, it is possible that such content may exist outside of this particular piece.