英语翻译环境权还是应当停留在公法的角度上去逐步完善和确立,环境权是由环境法来确立和维护的,环境法是以保护环境为己任,是以保护公众的环境利益为重要目的的,因此,其具有社会权的

英语翻译环境权还是应当停留在公法的角度上去逐步完善和确立,环境权是由环境法来确立和维护的,环境法是以保护环境为己任,是以保护公众的环境利益为重要目的的,因此,其具有社会权的
英语翻译
环境权还是应当停留在公法的角度上去逐步完善和确立,环境权是由环境法来确立和维护的,环境法是以保护环境为己任,是以保护公众的环境利益为重要目的的,因此,其具有社会权的性质.与此同时,试图以所谓的环境权来代替民法中业已存在的财产权及人格权,不仅导致民事权利设置的重复、混乱,也不利于真正地确立环境权.因此,环境权的损害赔偿也仅是以民事侵权来恒定而已.在研究目前国际形势下的环境权发展趋势来看,在欧洲发达国家环境法中,普遍可以找到对个人财产权利的严格禁止条款,有难以计数的关于许可、许可证、配额、时间和空间的限制、环境评价等方面的法律条文.这些限制和禁止性条款的设定,在于通过限制个人财产权利来达到加强环境共享权的目标.由此可见,这些限制性的条款,其主要目标在于通过限制个人私权而将社会公益最大化,并非出于保障私权甚至是将环境权私权化的意图,而部分学者甚至已经提出了“环境乌托邦”即在人类的法律中,赋予除人类以外的其他物种以平等的法律地位并同样切实保障其环境权的做法,在此情况下,还能简单的将环境权私权化吗?因此,当前环境权的私法化尚不成熟,在面对许多现实问题时还不能很好的解决争端.
接着上文的论述,环境权的私法化很大程度上是想确立一种预防性的机制,弥补以往《侵权责任法》中所规定的环境侵权只能在损害发生后才能补救的弊端,同时,希望借助于将环境权置于与财产权等私权并列或者类似的地位,以求立法从正向对其进行保护.但是,如果将环境权放置于像财产权带有私人属性的权利,以期借助市场的力量去自行调节利益关系,达到效用最大化的目的,其实是行不通的.市场虽然是有效率的,但是也会经常性的出现“市场失灵”,环境资源作为一种公共物品 ( public goods),不具有消费的排他性,而且这种消费的代价通常是低廉的或无偿的.环境资源的这种特性会引起需求与供给无法自动通过市场机制相互适应的问题,而且环境问题本身属于“外部性问题”,在不进行行政干预的情况下反而会阻碍市场效率,从而适得其反.
因此,在环境权私法化尚无法成型的情况下,处于公法下的环境权,应当怎样去弥补自身缺陷,成为了学界广泛讨论的问题.在现有基础下,公益诉讼和行政管理固然是两种相对较为适宜的方式,但其自身仍然存在一定的不足,如在诉讼法中,公益诉讼主体处境尴尬,因为民事诉讼的起诉人资格首先必须是“与案情有直接利害关系”,而公益诉讼往往起诉方是为公共利益进行诉讼.此外,在许多无明文规定的条件下,案件的审判标准难以统一,法院经常会以此由判定起诉方败诉,如南京违规搭建紫金山观景台案.而行政管理也存在一定的漏洞,如虫草挖掘,只需缴纳一定费用,就可持续挖掘,其破坏环境的本质并没有变.在此基础上,笔者认为,进一步的建立健全两项制度,使其正常运转并发挥作用,而不是寻求将环境权私法化,是较为妥当的.在此前提下,引入功利主义的价值衡量原则,对于解决冲突,有着很重要的借鉴价值.
希望专业人士帮忙翻译成英语,特别是其中的专业性名词,3Q

英语翻译环境权还是应当停留在公法的角度上去逐步完善和确立,环境权是由环境法来确立和维护的,环境法是以保护环境为己任,是以保护公众的环境利益为重要目的的,因此,其具有社会权的
Environmental rights or should remain in the public law perspective up gradually improved and establishment of environmental rights is to establish and maintain environmental law, and environmental law is their responsibility to protect the environment, based on the environmental protection of the public interest as an important objective, therefore, having the nature of social rights. At the same time, attempts to replace the so-called environmental rights to the existing civil law, property rights and personality rights, not only led to the civil rights set repetition, confusion, is not conducive to really establish environmental rights. Therefore, the environment is only right to damages based on tort to a constant only. In the study of the current international situation, development trend of environmental rights, environmental law in the European countries in general can be found on the personal property rights is strictly prohibited terms, there are countless about permits, licenses, quotas, time and space restrictions, environmental assessment and other aspects of legal provisions. These restrictions and prohibitions set terms, that by limiting the rights of personal property rights to achieve the shared goal of enhancing the environment. The effect of these restrictive provisions, its main goal is to restrict individual private rights through but will maximize social welfare, protection of private rights are not even out of the private rights of the environment right intentions, and some scholars have even proposed "Environmental Utopia" that is, in the law of humanity, given in addition to other species other than humans to equal legal status and the same effective protection of the right to practice their environment, in this case, but also the simple right to private rights of the environment do? Therefore, the current environment is not yet mature private law rights in the face of many practical problems Shihai can not solve disputes. Further to the above discussion, the environment is largely private law right to want to establish a preventive mechanism to compensate for the past, "Tort Liability Act" set forth in the environmental tort only after the damage occurred only remedy defects, while I hope by means of environmental rights will be placed side by side with property rights and other private rights or similar position, in order to protect them from the positive legislation. However, if placed in the right environment, like property with private property rights, in order to help market forces to self-regulation interests, to achieve the purpose of maximizing utility, in fact, is not feasible. Though the market is efficient, but also the emergence of regular "market failure", environmental resources as a public good (public goods), does not have the exclusive consumption, and the cost of such consumption is usually low or unpaid . This characteristic of environmental resources will cause demand and supply through the market mechanism can not automatically adapt to each other's problems, and environmental problems per se are "externalities", without administrative intervention in the case it will hinder market efficiency and thus counterproductive. Therefore, the right to private law in the environment could not be molded case, in the right environment under public law, it should be how to make up for their shortcomings, has become a widely discussed academic issues. The existing foundation, public interest litigation and administrative course of two relatively appropriate way, but there are still some of its own shortcomings, such as procedural law, public interest litigation body awkward, because civil prosecution qualification first must be "with a direct interest in the case," and public interest litigation is often the prosecution is in the public interest litigation. Moreover, in many no specific conditions, is difficult to unify criteria of trials, the courts often order by the judgment against the prosecution, such as the Purple Mountain Observatory in Nanjing to build the case of non-compliance. The administration also there are some loopholes, such as digging caterpillar fungus, simply pay a fee, on sustainable mining, the nature of its damage to the environment has not changed. On this basis, I believe that further establish and improve the two systems so that normal operation and play a role, rather than seeking the environmental rights of private law is more appropriate. In this context, the introduction of utilitarian value measurement principles for conflict resolution, has a very important reference value.