彭海良回答:
Environmentalrightsorshouldremaininthepubliclawperspectiveupgraduallyimprovedandestablishmentofenvironmentalrightsistoestablishandmaintainenvironmentallaw,andenvironmentallawistheirresponsibilitytoprotecttheenvironment,basedontheenvironmentalprotectionofthepublicinterestasanimportantobjective,therefore,havingthenatureofsocialrights.Atthesametime,attemptstoreplacetheso-calledenvironmentalrightstotheexistingcivillaw,propertyrightsandpersonalityrights,notonlyledtothecivilrightssetrepetition,confusion,isnotconducivetoreallyestablishenvironmentalrights.Therefore,theenvironmentisonlyrighttodamagesbasedontorttoaconstantonly.Inthestudyofthecurrentinternationalsituation,developmenttrendofenvironmentalrights,environmentallawintheEuropeancountriesingeneralcanbefoundonthepersonalpropertyrightsisstrictlyprohibitedterms,therearecountlessaboutpermits,licenses,quotas,timeandspacerestrictions,environmentalassessmentandotheraspectsoflegalprovisions.Theserestrictionsandprohibitionssetterms,thatbylimitingtherightsofpersonalpropertyrightstoachievethesharedgoalofenhancingtheenvironment.Theeffectoftheserestrictiveprovisions,itsmaingoalistorestrictindividualprivaterightsthroughbutwillmaximizesocialwelfare,protectionofprivaterightsarenotevenoutoftheprivaterightsoftheenvironmentrightintentions,andsomescholarshaveevenproposed"EnvironmentalUtopia"thatis,inthelawofhumanity,giveninadditiontootherspeciesotherthanhumanstoequallegalstatusandthesameeffectiveprotectionoftherighttopracticetheirenvironment,inthiscase,butalsothesimplerighttoprivaterightsoftheenvironmentdo?Therefore,thecurrentenvironmentisnotyetmatureprivatelawrightsinthefaceofmanypracticalproblemsShihaicannotsolvedisputes.Furthertotheabovediscussion,theenvironmentislargelyprivatelawrighttowanttoestablishapreventivemechanismtocompensateforthepast,"TortLiabilityAct"setforthintheenvironmentaltortonlyafterthedamageoccurredonlyremedydefects,whileIhopebymeansofenvironmentalrightswillbeplacedsidebysidewithpropertyrightsandotherprivaterightsorsimilarposition,inordertoprotectthemfromthepositivelegislation.However,ifplacedintherightenvironment,likepropertywithprivatepropertyrights,inordertohelpmarketforcestoself-regulationinterests,toachievethepurposeofmaximizingutility,infact,isnotfeasible.Thoughthemarketisefficient,butalsotheemergenceofregular"marketfailure",environmentalresourcesasapublicgood(publicgoods),doesnothavetheexclusiveconsumption,andthecostofsuchconsumptionisusuallyloworunpaid.Thischaracteristicofenvironmentalresourceswillcausedemandandsupplythroughthemarketmechanismcannotautomaticallyadapttoeachother'sproblems,andenvironmentalproblemsperseare"externalities",withoutadministrativeinterventioninthecaseitwillhindermarketefficiencyandthuscounterproductive.Therefore,therighttoprivatelawintheenvironmentcouldnotbemoldedcase,intherightenvironmentunderpubliclaw,itshouldbehowtomakeupfortheirshortcomings,hasbecomeawidelydiscussedacademicissues.Theexistingfoundation,publicinterestlitigationandadministrativecourseoftworel