Abstract: Promoting the unity of human nature and sociality in practice is a fundamental path dependence for achieving people’swell-rounded development. Within the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the practice of the unity of human nature and sociality is allowed to be truly implemented, and people’swell-rounded development moves from possibility to reality. Strengthening the protection of human rights for people’s well-rounded development in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature not only requires the expansion of the connotations of environmental rights from “the right to a healthy environment” to “the right to a beautiful environment”, but also necessitates the formation of a collaborative framework between environmental rights and development rights. For legal responses to the expansion of the connotations of environmental rights, it is necessary to implement such expansions in environmental legislation, enhance the underlying principles, and make progress in the development of systematic environmental legislation simultaneously. Regarding the legal promotion of the synergy between environmental rights and development rights, it is essential to follow the guidance of the “Two Mountains Theory,” take the coordinated functions of environmental and traditional legal departments as the basis, and build a legal mechanism for the realization of the value of ecological products and services.

 

Keywords: human nature · people’s well-rounded development · environmental rights · development rights · environmental law

 

Promoting the well-rounded development of human beings is the highest value pursuit of human rights. Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee emphasized in his keynote speech at the CPC and World Political Parties Summit that “The ultimate goal of modernization is to achieve the free and all-round development of people.”¹ Therefore, how to embody and strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights for the all-round development of human beings has become an important proposition in the study of human rights theories and practice in the process of the Chinese path to modernization. The Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China clearly stated for the first time that “The Chinese path to modernization is a modernization that promotes harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,” incorporating the promotion of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature into the essential requirements of the Chinese path to modernization. The proposal of modernization featured by harmonious coexistence between humans and nature not only expands and enriches the connotations of the Chinese path to modernization, but also creates new historical opportunities for the realization of comprehensive development of people. Therefore, how to understand and interpret the all-round development of people in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, and based on this, strengthen and improvethe protection of human rights for the all-round development of people, should be an important content of the research on the human rights discourse system with Chinese characteristics in the new era. This paper intends to take the all-round development of individuals in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature as the starting point, analyze and sort out the human rights implications in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, and based on this, explore and summarize the human rights protection needs and legal system responses in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature to assist in the development and improvement of China’s human rights discourse system in the process of pursuing the Chinese path to modernization.

 

 

 

“The exploration of human nature and human development, which has persisted from ancient times to the present, is an eternal theme and driving force of philosophy.”² Therefore, people’s all-round development is a research topic closely related to human nature and has always been highly valued in philosophical research. In Marxist philosophy, “All-round development refers to the development of certain internal aspects of human beings. What should humans develop and how they should develop depend entirely on what their essence is. Marx closely links the argument for people’s all-round development with the exploration of human essence.”³ Karl Marx paid close attention to the issue of human essence during the formation of his scientific worldview.” In a year and a half from the end of 1843 to the beginning of 1845, six definitions of human essence were put forward successively, namely, the human being is the highest essence of human being, the essence of humankind, the essence of human development, the essence of human community, the essence of human social connections and the human essence as an ensemble of social relations.”⁴ Among them, the definition of human essence as “an ensemble of social relations” has the greatest impact and is generally regarded as the summary conclusion of Marx’s theory of human essence. However, in fact, in the overall context of Marx’s assertion of the “ensembleof social relations”, it is not the conclusion of Marx’s theory of human essence, but rather an emphasis on the reality and social nature of human beings in the critique of Feuerbach’s “abstractness” in understanding human essence. From the original text,Marx proposed in sections six to eight of Theses on Feuerbach that “The essence of man is not an abstract entity inherent in the individual, but in its reality, it is an ensemble of social relations. Feuerbach did not criticize the nature of this reality, so he had to: set aside the historical process, fix religious feelings as independent things, and postulate an abstract — isolated — human individual… Feuerbach did not see that‘religious feelings’ themselves are a product of society... All social life is essentially practical.”⁵ From the overall context of this passage, Marx’s proposal that the essence of man as “an ensemble of social relations” was mainly aimed at Feuerbach’s imagined “abstract — isolated — human individual”. Also, he explicitly pointed out that Feuerbach’s attribution of “religious feelings” to man was not abstract but a “productof society”, emphasizing that “all social life is essentially practical”. Therefore, the proposal of “an ensemble of social relations” is to “criticize this abstraction and to inject reality into the essence of human beings, practice is the only way for the essence of human beings to reach reality.”⁶

 

Therefore, Marx’s theory of human essence cannot be mechanically equated with a certain definition, including the statement that human beings are an ensemble ofsocial relations. As mentioned earlier, Marx also defined human essence from many other perspectives. These different interpretations of human essence are mainly based on the specific problems that need to be solved in different contexts. Hence, the interpretation of Marx’s theory of human essence should integrate Marx’s exposition of human essence from different perspectives, and practice is the basic standpoint of a comprehensive understanding of Marx’s theory of human essence. When Marx proposed that human essence is “the ensemble of social relations”, he also emphasized that “all social life is essentially practical”, which highlights the practical position of Marx’s theory of human essence. Also, based on Marx’s various specific expositions on human essence, “it can be found that Marx has built a golden bridge between human and social history, which is ‘practice’, and completes the overall construction of the theory of human essence from the dimension of practice.”⁷ Specifically, practice generates human essence and determines the internal requirements for all-round human development.

 

Practice, as a generative real activity, mainly manifests as the interaction between humans and nature, and that between humans and society. Labor is the most basic form of human practice. Through labor, human beings satisfy their life activity needs by influencing and transforming nature, fully embodying their naturalness. Atthe same time, in the process of labor, various social relations are formed, constantly strengthening human sociality. Therefore, “Human social attributes are derived from natural attributes. In other words, they are the natural attributes of socialized people.This means that in a social state, the original natural attributes are not lost, but have social ways and meanings.”⁸ It is a labor practice that promotes the mutual penetration and mutual transformation of human nature and sociality. Through labor and practice,people realize the unity of human nature and sociality. What needs to be pointed out is that “the ensemble of social relations” emphasizes the reality and sociality of humane ssence. A complete understanding of Marx’s theory of human nature is to realize the unity of human nature and sociality in practice from the standpoint of practice. The all-round development of human beings must be based on human essence. Therefore, promoting the unity of human nature and sociality in practice should be regarded as the basic path to achieve all-round human development.

 

 

In a natural sense, it is the only way to promote the all-round development of human beings to realize the unity of human nature and sociality. “But the problem is that ‘sociality’ is often a factor that destroys ‘naturality’.”⁹ “Because of the mutual influence and interaction between human nature and sociality, there are many paradoxes in human essence itself, and human nature and sociality are always in a complex contradictory state.”¹⁰ In response to this problem, analysis should be based on a practical standpoint.

 

People promote the unity of nature and sociality and achieve their all-round development through practice, which is a conscious activity unique to human beings.Marx once said, “Free and conscious activity is precisely the characteristic of human beings.”¹¹ Therefore, the types and characteristics of human practice are closely related to the social ideology of specific historical periods. In the Marxist materialist view of history, social ideology has a distinct historical nature. Marx has systematically expounded on this issue, stating that “People have certain, inevitable relationships in thesocial production of their lives that are independent of human will, that is, production relationships that are compatible with the certain development stage of their material productivity. The ensemble of these production relations constitutes the economic structure of society, that is, the realistic basis on which a legal and political superstructure stands and a certain form of social ideology is adapted to it.”¹² As a conscious human activity, practice is inevitably influenced by the reality foundation and the superstructure of a specific stage of human development, thus reflecting distinct historical nature and characteristics of the times. Therefore, whether it is possible to achieve the unity of human nature and sociality and promote the all-round development of human beings through practice is a proposition relevant to the times in the Marxist materialist view of history. From this perspective, “the study of the all-round development of humans must be combined with specific historical positioning and incorporated into the process of the historical generation and development of human essence, serving asa value ruler for theoretical affirmation and reflection of the living conditions of contemporary people.”¹³ Therefore, the issue of the unity of human nature and sociality in practice should be analyzed in the context of history and the times.

 

The key to promoting the unity of human nature and sociality lies in understanding the relationship between human nature and sociality. Human nature is mainly reflected in the practice of interaction between humans and nature, which forms varioussocial relationships in the process of interaction and establishes human sociality based on these relationships. Human sociality is continuously strengthened in practice and profoundly influences the process of interaction between humans and nature. In this,the practice of interaction between humans and nature is the foundation for the construction of the relationship between human nature and sociality, and how the practice of interaction between humans and nature unfolds depends on how the relationship between humans and nature is understood and viewed. Therefore, the positioning of the relationship between humans and nature is the decisive premise for promoting the unity of human nature and sociality in practice. Different concepts and positions have been established in different forms of civilization in human social development to address this issue.

 

 

The essential characteristics of ecological civilization are respecting nature, conforming to nature, and protecting nature. “Ecological civilization is a new form of civilization that reflects the harmony between humans and nature, which is the product of the development of industrial civilization to a certain stage.”¹⁵ Compared with agricultural civilization and industrial civilization, its advancement is reflected in the fact that ecological civilization does not inherit the cognitive inertia of traditional civilization based on industrial forms, but redefines and constructs the form of civilization from a brand-new perspective of the relationship between humans and nature. In the system of the relationship between humans and nature, ecological civilization also attaches importance to human subjectivity and does not deny the necessity and legitimacy of industrial activities. However, ecological civilization emphasizes respecting nature,conforming to nature, and protecting nature. It regards the realization of natural laws as the prerequisite for the exertion of human subjectivity and promotes green development as the guiding requirement for industrial activities. It aims to build a community of life with interdependence and harmonious coexistence between humans and nature in the progress of social civilization. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China that “Natureis the basic condition for the survival and development of human beings. Respecting nature, conforming to nature, and protecting nature are the inherent requirements for the comprehensive construction of a socialist modern country. We must firmly establish and practice the concept that clear waters and lush mountains are valuable assets,and plan for development from the perspective of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.”¹⁶ Therefore, harmonious coexistence between humans and nature is not only the core requirement and basic goal of the development of ecological civilization but also an important characteristic and essential requirement of the Chinese path to modernization. Promoting harmonious coexistence between humans and nature not only allows the full release and display of human nature but also provides a solid foundation for social development. It also provides an unprecedented historical opportunity for the Chinese path to modernization for the practice concerning the unity of human nature and sociality and promotes the all-round development of people from being natural to being real.

 

 

The harmonious coexistence between humans and nature brings the unity of human nature and sociality from theoretical hypothesis to practice. The people’s all round development becomes an important prospect of China’s modernization, which puts forward a relevant proposition for the study of the human rights discourse system of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era. The essence of human rights lies in promoting and realizing the all-round development of people. How to implement and strengthen the protection of human rights for the all-round developmentof human beings in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature should become the focus of research on human rights theory and practice in the Chinese path to modernization today. The development of research in this area should start with the response to the needs and paths of all-round human development in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature and should be carried out by expanding the connotation of environmental rights in the harmonious coexistence of man and nature,and the synergy with development rights as environmental rights expand their connotations.

 

 

The promotion of people’s all-round development through the unity of human nature and sociality is based on the full realization of human nature. Human naturalness is essentially an issue of the relationship between humans and nature, the core of which lies in human’s conscious transformation of the natural environment and the impact of the natural environment on humans. Meeting people’s needs in the interaction between humans and the natural environment is the basic embodiment of human naturalness. This process generates and affects the development of human sociality. To fully guarantee the satisfaction of human needs in human interaction with the natural environment, environmental rights have emerged in the modern human rights system.“Human rights are an open and dynamically evolving system that always changes and improves with the evolution of social structure and cultural background.”¹⁷ As an important component of the modern human rights system, environmental rights are highly developmental. The construction of a society featuring the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature promotes the expansion of the connotations of environmental rights as basic human rights, enriching and perfecting their theory and practice.

 

Both internationally and in China, the focus of environmental rights has long been on “the right to a healthy environment”. In the international community, environmental rights, as fundamental human rights, have been recognized in the domestic laws of many countries, especially in their constitutions. According to statistics, over 100 constitutions worldwide stipulate “the right to a healthy environment”.¹⁸ In addition to defining the connotations of environmental rights from a health perspective,there are other similar expressions. Because “pollution-free”, “clean and hygienic”,“clean”, “suitable” and “suitable for human development” all contain the meaning of“health”, they can be attributed to a “healthy environment”.¹⁹ It is evident that there is a basic consensus in the international community regarding the understanding of environmental rights in the context of “the right to a healthy environment”.

 

From the development path of environmental rights in China, it can be seen that“in terms of the selection of the path for the confirmation of environmental rights,based on existing research findings and relevant practices, it is more common to start with the right to health to expound the foundation and legitimacy of the formation of environmental rights.”²⁰ This cognitive inertia started in the 1990s and has continued to some extent. Some scholars believe that Article 98 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of 1986, which stipulates that “citizens shall enjoy the right to life and health”, actually recognizes a certain kind of citizen’s environmental rights and regards citizen’s environmental rights as a derivative right of the right to life and health.²¹ Some scholars also believe that the focus of environmental rights is the right to environmental personality, and it is positioned as the right to the physical and mental health of individuals.²² In judicial practice, “in fact, the infringement of personal rights in environmental tort litigation is mainly remedied through the assertion of the right to health”.²³

 

Both the international community and China understand and position environmental rights from the perspective of “the right to a healthy environment”, which is mainly determined by the historical background of the creation of environmental rights. “Environmental rights are the product of the combination of environmental crisis and human rights concepts.”²⁴ Since the 1960s, the issue of environmental rights has been put forward successively in industrialized countries such as Germany and Japan. It mainly focuses on the damage to human health and even the threat to survival caused by environmental problems mainly manifested by industrial pollution.The protection of health has naturally become the main goal of environmental rights.Therefore, environmental rights have historical inevitability based on “rights to a healthy environment”, but at the same time, they also reserve necessary space for the expansion of their connotations in subsequent development.

 

In the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, environmental rights should be expanded from the basis of the “right to a healthy environment” to the “right to a beautiful environment”. Based on the basic positioning of the “right to a healthy environment”, the core demand of environmental rights is“environmentally harmless”, which only meets people’s most basic needs for the environment. It is the first step to incorporate human demands for the environment into the protection of human rights, given the background of the opposition and tension between humans and nature caused by the development of industrial civilization. The establishment of ecological civilization has completely reversed the tense and opposing relationship between humans and nature caused by the development of industrial civilization. It has made the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature the foundation for the progress of human civilization. In the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, a “harmless environment” has become the most basic requirement for the interaction and mutual influence between humans and nature. The continuous improvement of environmental conditions and the increasing satisfaction of human demands for the environment have become a true portrayal of“harmonious coexistence”.

 

In the case of China’s practice, the Report to the 19th CPC National Congress pointed out that “Socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era. The main contradiction in Chinese society has evolved into the contradiction between the people’s growing needs for a better life and the unbalanced and inadequate development.”²⁵ General Secretary Xi Jinping has defined the main content of “a better life”from seven aspects, namely, “better education, more stable jobs, higher incomes, morereliable social security, better healthcare services, more comfortable living conditions, and a more beautiful environment,”²⁶ making “a more beautiful environment”an important component of “the need for a better life”. In September 2021, the State Council Information Office released the Human Rights Action Plan of China (2021-2025), which includes environmental rights as an independent chapter, explicitly stating the need to “continuously meet the growing need of the people for a beautiful ecological environment and promote harmonious coexistence between humans and nature,” making the “need for a beautiful ecological environment” the foundation for“promoting harmonious coexistence between humans and nature”. It is not difficult to see that “beautiful” has become the basic positioning of people’s environmental needs under the background of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, and the extension of environmental rights from the “right to a healthy environment” to the“right to a beautiful environment” also happens at the right time. In recent years, the“right to a beautiful environment” has received close attention in the research on environmental rights. Scholars have put forward representative views such as “the rightto live in a beautiful environment”,²⁷ “the more beautiful environment” is the basis for the formation of the environmental rights guided by the “needs of a better life”,²⁸ and“citizens have the right to a beautiful ecological environment and to live in it”,²⁹ and research on the theme of the “right to a beautiful environment” continues to be carried out. Promoting the extension of environmental rights from the “right to a healthy environment” to the “right to a beautiful environment” in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature should become a priority action for strengthening human rights protection and promoting comprehensive human development.

 

 

The extension of the right to a healthy environment to the right to a beautiful environment fully unleashes and demonstrates human nature. It is the foundation for strengthening the protection of human rights for all-round development in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. The realization of the ultimate goal of all-round development depends on the development of human nature and sociality in unity. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of the human rights foundation for social development and its relationship with the right to the environment. The sociality of humans is mainly the basic attribute of human existence as asocial being. “Human social existence is distinguished from nature and so-called animal society by its economic, political, and cultural existence.”³⁰ Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1986 states that “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all humanrights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” It can be seen that the right to development is a concentrated expression of the human rights protection needs of human beings as social beings, and it is also an indispensable part of the human rights protection needs in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. The harmonious coexistence between humans and nature reflects a two-way thinking. It is nota unilateral emphasis on nature or human factors. Respecting nature, conforming to nature, protecting nature, and social development of human beings complement each other, which is a complete understanding of harmonious coexistence between humansand nature. Therefore, in the human rights protection needs in harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the right to development is equally important as environmental rights. The realization of the right to development provides solid support for the protection of environmental rights, and the proposal of the goals of environmental rights further expands the dimension of the right to development. From this perspective, strengthening the guarantee of the right to development based on affirming the legitimacy of people’s social development needs, and continuously promoting the positive interaction between environmental rights and development rights, is the necessary path to continuously improve the level of human rights protection in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. Therefore, in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the realization of the goal of all round development of humans based on the unity of human nature and sociality, from the perspective of the demand for human rights protection, requires the formation of a pattern of coordinated development of environmental rights and development rights.

 

As a basic human right, environmental rights themselves have a strong synergy.In the modern human rights system, compared to traditional human rights such as theright to life and the right to development, environmental rights are a relatively recent type of human rights. From the perspective of the emergence of environmental rights as a fundamental human right and its development process, they mainly stem from the inadequacy of traditional human rights in addressing the relationship between humans and nature and are a product of the systematic improvement of modern human rights.In the intergenerational development of human rights, “Throughout history, human rights are not a matter of one replacing another, let alone negating each other... They are always in progressive expansion, and transformation and upgrading.”³¹ Therefore,environmental rights naturally have the function of expanding and strengthening traditional human rights from their inception, and in their development, they continuously promote the transformation and upgrading of human rights protection as a whole through synergy with traditional human rights.

 

In the early days when environmental rights were proposed, the draft principles of the United Nations Subsidiary Committee on Human Rights and the Environment listed environmental rights as “containing numerous explanatory elements”, “being free from activities that pollute the environment or are harmful to the environment or threaten life, health, livelihood, well-being, or sustainable development” is placed in a prominent position.³² It is not difficult to see that environmental rights were initiallymainly aimed at the threat to human survival or health posed by environmental issues(mainly environmental pollution). It is a minimal response to guarantee human rights.The proposal of environmental rights aims to expand the environmental dimension of the right to life and respond specifically to the basic human rights protection needs arising from environmental issues. “A harmless and healthy living environment” has become the core demand of environmental rights in the early days. Therefore, some scholars define the environmental rights of this stage as “the right to environmental survival”, believing that “as the right to environmental survival, it presupposes and requires the guarantee that the common environmental resources are not polluted to maintain the possibility of citizens’ harmless survival.”³³ Environmental rights are formed based on expanding the dimension of the right to life and have synergisticallyimproved the level of human rights protection for survival needs. In the human rightssystem, “there is an inherent connection between various rights, and the full realization of each right relies on the development of other rights.”³⁴ From this perspective,when humanity faces the survival challenges brought by environmental crises, the realization of the right to life depends on the development of environmental rights. The synergy between environmental rights and the right to life became the main driving force for the development of environmental rights in the early days. In the process of the expansion of environmental rights from the earlier “right to a healthy environment” to the “right to a beautiful environment”, the synergy between environmental rights and the right to development has also become increasingly prominent based on the synergy between environmental rights and the right to life that has already been formed.

 

In the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the foundation for the synergy between environmental rights and development rights has been established. Development is a concept with rich connotations. Different from growth,which only focuses on quantity increase, development emphasizes improvement instructure and describes the state of social progress from the perspective of synergistic advancement in various aspects. Development is characterized by different linked stages. “Each specific development process ultimately relies on previous development,”³⁵ which means that “previous development” not only provides the foundation for subsequent development but also determines the direction and focus of structural improvement in subsequent development. The right to development established by the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development covers “economic, social, cultural, and political development”, among which economic development is the foundation for other aspects of development. However, there is a dialectical relationship between economic development and environmental protection. The environmental problems caused by early economic development not only pose a threat to human life and health but also severely restrict further development, making environmental protection an indispensable development issue. The environmental dimension has become the main direction for the multidimensional expansion and optimization of the right to development.

 

China’s practice of the right to development has contributed to Chinese discourse and experience to the solution of this problem. In December 2016, the State Council Information Office issued The Right to Development: China’s Philosophy, Practice and Contribution, which deeply interpreted the environmental dimension of the right to development, pointing out that “China follows a balanced and sustainable development approach, regards harmonious development between humans and nature andbetween economy and society as a new state of realizing and guaranteeing the right to development,” and the harmonious development between humans and nature has promoted the extension of the connotations of environmental rights from “right to a healthy environment” to “right to a beautiful environment”. It regards “harmonious development between humans and nature” as a new state of realizing and guaranteeing the right to development, which means that the coordination and advancement of environmental rights and the right to development have become important measures to continuously improve China’s level of human rights protection, and also provide guidance for strengthening the institutional improvement of all-round human rights protection in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.

 

 

 

In the context of the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the extension of the connotations of environmental rights from the “right to a healthy environment” to the “right to a beautiful environment” actually reflects the development trend of continuously improving the level of human rights protection for environmental demands. The core demand of the right to a healthy environment is a “harmless environment”, which is the minimum requirement for the environmental condition.The basis of the right to a beautiful environment is the expectation of rights protection concerning the continuous improvement of environmental quality based on a “harmless environment”. The proposal of the right to a beautiful environment does not mean the denial or replacement of the right to a healthy environment. The right to a healthy environment is the foundation for the proposal of the right to a beautiful environment.The right to a beautiful environment is a new expression of the right to a healthy environment in the context of the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.The coexistence of both constitutes environmental rights in a complete sense. In the context of comprehensively governing the country according to the law in China, the expression and realization of environmental rights need to be based on the supportand guarantee of laws, especially in the concentrated embodiment and response of environmental laws. The extension of the connotations of environmental rights from the right to a healthy environment to the right to a beautiful environment contains the hope for the realization of both a “harmless environment” and a “beautiful ecological environment” as human rights guarantees, which puts forward new research propositions for the improvement of the legislative structure of environmental laws in China.

 

Overall, whether it is the emphasis on basic functions or the selection of the main legislative model, China’s environmental legislation does not fully meet the legal system requirements for the realization of either a “harmless environment” or a “beautiful ecological environment”.

 

First, in the tradition of environmental legislation in China, the basic functions of laws focus on pollution prevention and control, and the understanding of a “harmless environment” is not complete. From a global perspective, the first generation of environmental problems, which are mainly manifested in water pollution and air pollution brought about by industrial development, is the origin of the formation of environmental laws in the modern sense. The story is similar in China. In the early 1970s,the appearance of pollution in Guanting Reservoir and the western suburbs of Beijing drew the attention of the decision-makers in China to environmental issues. The State Council issued a warning to the whole country for the first time, stating that China was facing environmental pollution, and proposed planning and governance for regional water and air pollution.³⁶ In 1973, the State Council held the first National Conference on Environmental Protection and passed the Several Provisions on the Protection and Improvement of the Environment (Trial Draft), officially putting environmental protection on the national agenda. This traditional understanding of environmental issues has had a clear tendency to impact the formation of subsequent environmental legislation in China and the emphasis on the basic functions of environmental legislation. It has formed the development inertia of China’s environmental legislation with a focus on pollution prevention and control. Environmental legislation focuses on pollution prevention and control, and the key to giving play to its function is to eliminate the harmful effects caused by environmental pollution. Although this is indispensable for achieving the goal of a “harmless environment”, it only focuses on pollution control and does not fully reflect the concept of a “harmless environment”. From the basic composition of environmental issues, in addition to environmental pollution, ecological destruction is also a type of environmental issue that cannot be ignored. The consequences of ecological destruction often do not have direct and clear harm, making it difficult to attract sufficient attention in environmental legislation or to give it the same level of attention as environmental pollution. However, the weakening or even loss of the inherent functions of environmental elements caused by ecological damage will lead to changes in the overall natural environment that are unfavorable to human survival and development. Therefore, fundamentally preventing and reversing this development trend is also an important part of the “harmless environment”. Therefore, itis necessary to transcend the cognitive limitations about the “harmless environment”formed in the context of pollution prevention and control and improve the institutional design of the “harmless environment” in environmental legislation from the perspective of pollution control and ecological protection. By implementing and strengthening the systematic underlying principles in environmental legislation, necessary legal support for the protection of the “harmless environment” should be provided, and a legal basis for the complete expression of environmental rights should be established.

 

Second, with the focus on the function of pollution prevention and control,China’s environmental legislation has long adopted a model of legislation based on single environmental elements, which lacks a systematic response to the demands of the right for a “beautiful ecological environment.” In reality, environmental pollution mainly manifests as pollution based on single environmental elements. Therefore,environmental legislation also mainly adopts a legislative model based on pollution control for single environmental elements. This legislative model can fully reflect the differences in pollution control of different environmental elements. The design of the legal system is highly targeted. The effect of pollution control is obvious. The choice of legislative model is to some extent rational. However, at the same time, the limitations of this legislative model are also obvious. Various environmental elements in anatural state are interrelated and mutually influential, collectively forming the ecological environment in a holistic sense. Therefore, the ecological environment in a holistic sense is not simply the sum of single environmental elements, but a systematic and integrated whole. As far as legislation is concerned, it is not only necessary to solve the problem of differences through legislation based on single environmental elements,but also to solve the interrelationships and influences among different environmental elements through systematic environmental legislation. “A beautiful ecological environment”, as a hierarchically extended right claim based on a “harmless environment”, inevitably places more emphasis on the overall quality improvement and optimization of the ecological environment rather than simply achieving pollution control standards for one or a few environmental elements. Therefore, although the legislative model based on single environmental elements has its rational sides, the achievement of the goal of “a beautiful ecological environment” requires the support of systematic environmental legislation. Only the balanced development and coordinated promotion of legislation based on single environmental elements and systematic environmental legislation can provide complete legislative support and institutional guarantee for the extension of the connotation of environmental rights from “right to a healthy environment” to “right to a beautiful environment”.

 

Based on the above analysis, to fully respond to the legal protection needs for the extension of the connotations of environmental rights in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the structural improvement of environmental legislation needs to be carried out from two aspects: first, implementing and enhancing the underlying principles in environmental legislation; second, promoting the development of systematic environmental legislation. This will be discussed below.

 

 

“Harmless environment” as the starting point of environmental rights formation not only refers to the effective control of environmental pollution, but also essentially means to establish a basic defense line to prevent harmful impacts on the environment comprehensively. The realization of this defensive right requires the support of defining the underlying principles of ecological environment protection by law. Regarding this issue, General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly points out that “We must accelerate the delineation and strict adherence to the three red lines of ecological protection, environmental quality, and resource utilization. It is forbidden to break through these redlines and not allowed to continue with extensive growth patterns and sacrifice the future for immediate gains.”³⁷ General Secretary Xi Jinping’s general exposition on this issue clarifies the underlying principles that should be adhered to in environmental legislation.

 

The key to implementing and enhancing the underlying principles in environmental legislation lies in how the political arrangements of “delineating ecological protection red lines” can be reflected and effectively implemented in legislation. The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Some Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Continuing the Reform, passed at the 3rd Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC, comprehensively plans for the delineation of ecological protection red lines, which is a major institutional innovation in China’s ecological civilization construction. Article 29 of the revised Environmental Protection Law passed in 2014 stipulates that “The state shall delineate ecological protection red lines in key ecological function areas, ecological environment sensitive areas, and fragile areas, and implement strict protection.” This reflects the political requirements for delineating ecological protection red lines in China’s comprehensive environmental protection legislation. From the implementation of the above-mentioned legal provisions in recent years, while there has been some progress in the implementation of the ecological protection red line requirements, there is still a large space for improvement in the system.

 

“Specifically, the ecological protection red lines can be divided into the baseline of ecological function guarantee, the bottom line of environmental quality and safety,and the upper limit of natural resource utilization.”³⁸ Therefore, in practice, the implementation of the ecological protection red lines is mainly promoted through the institutional construction of the “Three Lines and One List”. The “Three Lines and One List” refers to the “baseline of ecological function guarantee, the bottom line of environmental quality and safety, and the upper limit of natural resource utilization, and the ecological environment access list.” “Its core is to improve environmental quality and 

maintain the functionality of the ecological environment system as the goal, integrate the achievements regarding the baseline, bottom line, and upper limit, delineate management and control units, and compile differentiated ecological environment access lists.”³⁹ “The four elements are relatively independent and mutually supportive,forming a relatively complete macro-environmental management front-end system.”⁴⁰The development trend shows that the construction of the “Three Lines and One List”system has been effective. By the end of 2021, all 31 provinces (regions, municipalities) and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps had completed the release of provincial-level “Three Lines and One List” achievements. The technical conditions for the implementation of this system are basically in place. Currently, “at the national level, there is a lack of legal, regulation and policy guarantees for the “Three Lines and One List” system. The inclusion of the “Three Lines and One List” “in laws and regulations in various regions is mostly reflected as “principle-based legislation”without further detailed provisions.”⁴¹ Insufficient legal support has become the main bottleneck restricting the further implementation of this system. Based on the principled provisions of the Environmental Protection Law regarding ecological protection redlines, the legislative improvement of the “Three Lines and One List” system is a systematic process. Following the institutional logic of “planning coordination —institutional relay — accountability constraint”, the following three aspects should be the focus of legislative improvement for the “Three Lines and One List” system.

 

First, clarifying the relationship between the “Three Lines and One List” and the national land spatial planning through legislation. The “Three Lines and One List”system has significant spatial characteristics⁴² and inevitably faces the issue of its relationship with national land spatial planning in practice. “The ‘Three Lines and One List’ system is a voluntarily constructed spatial, integrated, and information-based defense network for the ecological environment of national land space.”⁴³ It is a new means to strengthen the environmental management of national land space under the background of ecological civilization construction. Therefore, the status and role of the “Three Lines and One List” in national land spatial planning should be arranged in legislation to provide necessary legal support for the implementation of the “Three Lines and One List” system. In response, this issue should be addressed by improving comprehensive legislation on environmental protection or by making clear provisions in relevant administrative regulations. Second, promoting the institutional relay from the “Three Lines and One List” to environmental impact assessment through legislation improvement. “Three Lines and One List” serves as the foundation of China’s ecological environment preventive system. “Starting environmental governance from the source of decision-making and clarifying access requirements is also a decision criterion for planning environmental impact assessments, project environmental impact assessments, and other environmental management measures.”⁴⁴ Therefore, the spatial access requirements established by the “Three Lines and One List” need to be reflected and implemented through the environmental impact assessment system. Top romote the institutional relay from the “Three Lines and One List” to environmental impact assessment, the existing legislation on environmental impact assessment in China should make clear provisions regarding the effectiveness of the “Three Lines and One List” as the basis for environmental impact assessment, the connection between “Three Lines and One List” and planning environmental impact assessment and project environmental impact assessment, and other related issues. Third, establishing an assessment and accountability mechanism for the “Three Lines and One List” inlegislation. In the actual implementation of work, local Party committees and governments are the main bodies responsible for the formulation, issuance, and implementation of the “Three Lines and One List”. The effectiveness of the “Three Lines and One List” is often closely related to the decision-making of local Party committees and governments. Therefore, whether a corresponding assessment and accountability mechanism for local Party and government leaders can be established largely determines the implementation effect of the “Three Lines and One List” system. To address this issue, the implementation of the “Three Lines and One List” should be incorporated into China’s environmental legislation, including the target-oriented responsibility system and assessment and evaluation system for environmental protection, to increase the legal and institutional constraints on the implementation of the “Three Lines and One List”.

 

 

As a new development of environmental rights in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the concept of the “right to a beautiful environment” emphasizes the demand for a “beautiful ecological environment” and puts forward new requirements for the protection objects and legislative models of environmental legislation. The concept of a “beautiful ecological environment” refers to the continuous improvement and development trend of the ecological environment. Objectively, it mainly manifests as the overall improvement of the ecological environment quality. From the perspective of human needs, it mainly reflects a subjective perception of the continuous improvement of the ecological environment condition asa whole. Therefore, the presentation of the “beautiful ecological environment” is not a simple sum of single environmental elements, but an optimization of the overall state of the ecological environment as a whole. This requires a change in the legislative model that has long relied on legislation for single environmental elements in China’s environmental legislation, and the promotion of the development of systematic environmental legislation to effectively respond to the era’s demand for strengthening the overall protection of the ecological environment and provide necessary legal support for the creation and presentation of the “beautiful ecological environment”.To promote the development of systematic environmental legislation, it is necessary to rationally position the legislative objects based on the update of the environmental legislative methodology, which will be discussed in the following part.

 

Systematic environmental legislation should be based on a holistic methodology. For a long time, environmental legislation has been dominated by the restoration methodology. Reductionism is the foundation of Western modern science, and its core idea is that the essence of everything can be understood by dividing it into parts. Reductionism in environmental legislation mainly manifests as reducing the higher-level phenomenon of “environmental problems” to the lower-level phenomena of “environmental pollution” and “ecological damage”, and then further decomposing them into the pollution and damage suffered by various environmental elements. Finally,legislation is enacted separately for the pollution control or protection of specific environmental elements.⁴⁵ This is the main methodological root of previous environmental legislation relying on the legislation model of single environmental elements.However, with the increasing complexity of environmental problems and the deepening understanding of the holistic nature of ecosystems, the limitations of reductionistmethodology in legislation are becoming increasingly apparent. To address this issue,General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly pointed out at the symposium on advancing the development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt that “Starting from the holistic and systemic nature of the ecosystem and river basin, we should trace the root causes, provide systematic treatment, and prevent treating the symptoms instead of the root causes.”⁴⁶ He emphasized the need to adhere to holistic and systemic thinking and methods in the field of ecological environment. The Report to the 20th CPC National Congress states that “We must promote the construction of a beautiful China, adhere to the integrated protection and systematic governance of mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands,lakes, grasslands, and deserts,” once again emphasizing the necessity and importance of systematic governance. Therefore, the basic methodology of environmental legislation should also be timely updated from reductionism to holism to promote the development of systematic environmental legislation with a holistic approach and strengthen the overall protection level of the ecological environment. The cognitive foundation of holism is that things are holistic, systematic, and complex. Only by focusing on the whole can we grasp the essence of things. “The inherent non-linear thinking mode, systemic viewpoint, holistic theory, and interdisciplinary integrated research tradition of holism provide a theoretical foundation and methodology for exploring ways to solve the human environmental crisis.”⁴⁷ Therefore, the establishment of a holistic methodology in environmental legislation will change the long-standing pattern of environmental legislation focusing on specific environmental elements. By strengthening the systematic nature of legislation, it will form an integrated effect of environmental legislation and fully respond to the rights demands of “a beautiful ecological environment” in a holistic sense.

 

Systematic environmental legislation should be guided by a rational understanding of the “whole” to determine its legislative positioning. Based on solving methodological problems, the positioning of systematic environmental legislation also needs further clarification, including what is systematic environmental legislation and what are the key areas of systematic environmental legislation in China. Systematic environmental legislation is based on the methodology of holism, and understanding the“whole” becomes a guiding factor in determining the positioning of systematic environmental legislation. In a philosophical sense, “regarding the whole as an integration of interconnected components, and the whole is a part of a larger whole and is relative.”⁴⁸ This is from a legislative perspective. “Overall, holism is essentially functionalist-oriented... In the field of environmental law, this functional requirement is morea bout the premise of the overall functionality of the ecological environment system.” ⁴⁹Therefore, in the perspective of systemic environment legislation, the whole should be a specific ecosystem formed by the interaction and mutual influence of various environmental elements, and its legislation should be aimed at safeguarding and realizingthe overall functionality of the specific ecosystem.

 

Based on the above cognition, systematic environmental legislation should mainly focus on two aspects: basin legislation and legislation for specific ecological regions. “A basin is a complete ecosystem centered around a water system.”⁵⁰ “Basin legislation is essentially a legislative model that focuses on specific ecological systems”,⁵¹ which is completely consistent with the positioning of systematic environmental legislation. In terms of basin legislation, China has already enacted the Yangtze River Protection Law and the Yellow River Protection Law. These laws not only fully respond to the top-level design requirements of “jointly promoting large-scale protection and avoiding large-scale development” and “ecological protection and high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin”, but also grasp the key to basin legislation in China. They play an important guiding and exemplary role in promoting the overall governance and improvement of China’s basin ecological environment. Compared tobasin legislation, legislation for specific ecological regions in China still needs to be strengthened. Regarding specific ecological regions, there is no consistent understanding in academic research.⁵² From the perspective of China’s practice, it mainly refers to nature reserves. The Report to the 19th CPC National Congress proposed to “establish a system of nature reserves with national parks as the main body.” In his letter to the opening of the first National Park Forum in 2019, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that “China implements the national park system with the aim of preserving the authenticity and integrity of natural ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, and safeguarding ecological security barriers. This is an important measure for China to promote natural ecological protection, build a beautiful China, and promote harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.”⁵³ Taking nature reserves with national parks as the main body as a typical representative and focus of ecosystem integrity protection has been reflected in China’s top-level design, and relevant systematic environmental legislation should also be in place in a timely manner. Currently, the National Park Law has been included in the second category of legislative plans by the 13th National People’s Congress Standing Committee. The National Park Law (Draftfor Solicitation of Comments) was released for public comment in August 2022. Legislation on nature reserves has also become a key issue in related theoretical research,and the Law on Nature Reserves has been included in the legislative work plan for 2022 by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a draft law to be submitted to the State Council for review, achieving phased results. At present, based on the previous legislative (research) work, the special law and general law relationship between the National Park Law and the Law on Nature Reserves should be clarified first. The former should stipulate special norms that only apply to national parks based on achieving innovation and breakthroughs in the legal system to provide a reference for the Natural Reserves Law and legislation for other protected areas. The latter should focus on establishing a comprehensive system of regulations on the status, nature, and functions of different types of protected areas ⁵⁴ to comprehensively and completely guarantee the specific needs of the people for scientific research, culture, education, andother specific types of experiences in different functional natural reserves. Second, theguiding role of the National Parks Law in the legal system of nature reserves should be utilized to better balance the interests of ecological conservation and the livelihood and development of local residents.⁵⁵ “Citizens should have the right to enjoy all natural ecological elements, spaces, and related ecological services owned by the state in accordance with the law, as well as the state’s obligation to guarantee this.”⁵⁶ This truly reflects that a good ecological environment is the most beneficial livelihood for the people. We should fully ensure the “right to a beautiful environment” of the people to feel and experience the “beautiful ecological environment” in the nature reserve system with national parks as the main body.

 

 

 

Regardless of how environmental rights are understood, protecting the environment is always the foundation and essence of environmental rights. Although the right to development is rich in connotation, economic development is the basis for achieving development in other aspects. Therefore, the relationship between environmental rights and the right to development essentially reflects the relationship between environmental protection and economic development. Whether the goal of coordinated development of development rights and environmental rights can be achieved fundamentally depends on whether the consistency between environmental protection and economic development can be realized.

 

In the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature in ecological civilization, the proposal and practice of the “Two Mountains Theory” provide clear directional guidance for achieving consistency between environmental protection and economic development. “Clear waters and green mountains are as valuableas mountains of gold and silver,” as the core of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization, succinctly and profoundly explains the inherent consistency between environmental protection and economic development. “Clear waters and green mountains” symbolize environmental protection, while “mountains of gold and silver”represent economic development. “Lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” not only reveals the inherent consistency between environmental protection and economic development but also points out that the basis of this consistency lies in the economic attribute of “clear waters and green mountains”. In other words, the establishment of the economic development function of environmental protection is the key to the transformation of the “Two Mountains Theory” into practice, and it is also the necessary path to achieve consistency between environmental protection and economic development and to promote the synergy between the right to development and environmental rights.

 

The economic development function of environmental protection is reflected in the realization and transformation process of the economic value of the ecological attribute of the natural environment. Furthermore, the “ecological attribute of the natural environment is manifested in the ability of natural resources to provide ecological products and services, including flood regulation, climate regulation, soil protection,nutrient cycling, environmental purification, and maintenance of biodiversity.” ⁵⁷“Ecologists not only recognize that the services provided by ecosystems to humansmay sometimes be more valuable than the products we provide, but also realize that toprotect these services provided by ecosystems, it is necessary to calculate the value of these services and incorporate them into market signals.”⁵⁸ Therefore, the ecological attributes, ecological products and services, value, market signals, and other elements of the natural environment have inherent logical connections, which contain the economic and market attributes inherent in the environment with ecology as the basic connotation. Here, ecological products and services have become the core connection point in the entire logical relationship chain, and the realization of the value of ecological products and services should become the most important starting point to reflect the inherent economic and market attributes of the environment. From this perspective, promoting the coordinated development of development rights and environmental rights in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature guided by the“Two Mountains Theory” should depend on the realization of the value of ecological products and services as the basic path.

 

 

In recent years, guided by the “Two Mountains Theory”, the realization of the value of ecological products and services has become an important research topic,and scholars have discussed this issue from their respective professional perspectives. Some scholars have proposed that a development mechanism of “clear waters and green mountains are as valuable as mountains of gold and silver” should be established from five aspects: characteristic industry system, ecological environment system, regional cooperation system, institutional innovation system, and ecological payment system.⁵⁹ Other scholars have pointed out that “we should strengthen the innovation of ecological environment policies, strengthen fiscal support policies,improve the policy means of capitalization and value-added utilization of natural resources, and strengthen the formulation and application of market economy policies for ecological environment protection.”⁶⁰ Based on the existing research results on this issue, it is necessary to further clarify the underlying logic of the value realization of ecological products and services and where the starting point for the construction of corresponding legal mechanisms lies.

 

Value or value realization is a basic category that has a natural intrinsic connection with the market. From the existing research results on the value realization of ecological products and services, it is based on keywords such as “market” and closely related “industry”, “capital”, “payment”, etc. Therefore, the essence of the value realization of ecological products and services is a matter of value realization in the market. Fundamentally, the market, as a resource allocation mechanism, is formed based on transactions, and transactions are closely linked to property rights. Clear property rights are the basic premise for transactions and the construction of market value realization. Property rights are an economic term. From a legal perspective,clear property rights mainly refer to the confirmation and definition of property rights for the objects of transactions. Therefore, making a legal determination of the property rights of ecological products and services is the logical starting point for constructing the legal mechanism for the value realization of ecological products and services.

 

Defining the rights with property attributes for ecological products and services requires the institutional relay and innovation of environmental law based on the traditional property law system. The traditional property law system is based on tangible objects and has derived corresponding rules, emphasizing the specificity of the property object and “equating specificity with identity.”⁶¹ Ecological products and services mainly manifest as a functional existence and do not present in a specific physical form. They are completely inconsistent with the basic requirements of the traditional property rights system for objects. Therefore, defining the rights with property attributes for ecological products and services as a form of institutional innovation for rights definition requires promotion within the context of environmental law. The definition of property rights for ecological products and services in environmental legislation needs to be approached from two aspects.

 

First, in legislation, the value attribute of ecological products and services should be recognized. From a traditional perspective, the protection of the ecological environment function in environmental law is mainly based on non-utilitarian value orientation. However, the establishment of the ecological environment’s economic development function requires the updating of environmental law concepts. It is necessary to clarify the value attributes of the products and services provided by the ecological environment in legislation. This is the basic premise for the formation of property rights for ecological products and services. Second, in legislation, the boundaries of property rights of ecological products and services should be determined. The boundary of rights is the core issue in defining rights and determining the exclusivity and tradability of rights. Ecological products and services are not presented in physical form but mainly exist as functional entities. This requires the use of corresponding technical means and indicators such as quantity, standards, and monitoring to quantify ecological products and services. Based on quantification, they need to be specified according to transactional needs. The process of specifying ecological products and services is the process of determining the boundaries of rights. This process, from technology to law, needs to be completed within the environmental law. Defining property rights for ecological products and services is a new development challenge and opportunity faced by environmental law in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. In this regard, China’s environmental judicial practice has made clear responses. In February 2023, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Providing Judicial Services for Actively and Steadily Promoting Carbon Peak and Carbon Neutrality in Accordance with the New Development Concept, which pointed out the need to “strengthen judicial protection of new types of ecological resource rights and interests” and “strengthen the basic theoretical research on judicial protection of ecological resource rights and interests,”providing clear judicial orientation for the legislative improvement of property rights for ecological products and services.

 

Completing the definition of property rights for ecological products and services through improving environmental legislation is only the first step in realizing their value. The definition of their property rights is to integrate ecological products and services into the market trading system. The actual operation of this right in the market system requires the coordinated support of many traditional legal departments outside of the environmental law. From the perspective of several main nodes in the market trading logic of these rights, it should at least include the following three aspects. First, the construction and access of this rights market requires administrative permission to reflect its rights boundary and determine its market transaction types and scope through administrative planning. By coordinating and improving the administrative licensing in terms of scope, conditions, and procedures, the scope ofthe right itself is clearly defined, and the market access conditions for potential right holders are determined based on this. Meanwhile, the scope of the rights market, the trading methods, and the types of rights are determined. Second, the actual transaction operation of these rights requires the civil legislation to clearly define the rules for rights registration, transfer, and mortgage. Based on its transaction characteristics of non-physical delivery, the registration system for rights should be the focus of improvement, clarifying the institutions, procedures, deadlines, content, fees, etc., for registering these rights based on the establishment of the registration obligation for the rights holder. Furthermore, it is necessary to coordinate and improve the system for rights transfer and mortgage, establish a written contract system for the transfer and mortgage of these rights, and clarify the rules for notification, approval, restrictions,and the implementation of specific mortgage rights. Third, the development and regulatory requirements of the trade of rights determine that it not only needs to respond to the institutional needs of financialization of rights in financial law but also needs to establish a regulatory mechanism for the trade of rights in the field of economic law.The former needs to identify and respond to the financial risks derived from these rights through the development of financial law, and the latter needs to rely on the improvement of economic law to ensure the legal and fair operation of the market while introducing the coordinated goal of ecological protection and restoration to ensure the orderly realization of the value of ecological products based on ecological protection.Therefore, the construction of a legal mechanism for the realization of the value of ecological products and services is a systematic legal process, which requires the coordinated promotion of environmental law and traditional legal departments, and joint promotion of institutional innovation in the realization of the value of ecological products and services, providing solid legal support for the coordination of environmental rights and development rights in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.

 

 

Modernization in which humans and nature coexist harmoniously is modernization in which man develops freely and comprehensively. Continuously improving the level of human rights protection for people’s all-round development has become an important mission in the construction of the socialist human rights system with Chinese characteristics in the new era. The theory and practice of environmental rights and development rights should keep pace with the times to fully respond to the needs of human rights protection for the all-round development of people in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. To reflect the elevation of human environmental needs from “harmless environment” to “beautiful ecological environment” in the context of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, the connotation of environmental rights should be extended promptly from the “right to a healthy environment” to the “right to a beautiful environment”. At the same time, in order to fundamentally promote the unified development of human nature and sociality, the extension of the connotations of environmental rights should be coordinated and advanced with development rights, continuously enhancing the systematic and holistic protection of human rights for all-round development of people in the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. The transformation and extension of environmental rights and development rights pose new challenges and development opportunities for China’s environmental laws and related legislation. To fully respond to the legal protection needs of the extension of environmental rights from the “right to a healthy environment” to the “right to a beautiful environment”, while strengthening the underlying principles in the implementation of environmental legislation, it is necessary to vigorously promote the development of systematic environmental legislation, and provide strong legislative support for the integrated realization of the goals of “harmless environment” and “beautiful ecological environment”. To achieve the goal of coordinated development of environmental rights and development rights, it is necessary to take the “Two Mountains Theory” as a guide, regard the realization of the value of ecological products and services as a basic path, and based on the institutional innovation of environmental law in formulating property rights of ecological productsand services. By complementing the functions of environmental law with various traditional legal departments, a legal mechanism for the realization of the value of ecological products and services can be constructed, effectively promoting the coordinated development of environmental rights and development rights at the legal level.

 

(Translated by CHEN Feng)

 

* ZHANG Lu ( 张璐 ), Professor at the School of Economic Law, East China University of Political Science and Law. This paper is a phased achievement of the National Social Sciences Fund’s Major Project titled “Research on Legal Regulation of Biodiversity Protection under the Perspective of Holistic System” (Project No.19ZDA162). 

 

1. Xi Jinping, “Strengthening Cooperation Among Political Parties to Jointly Pursue the People’s Wellbeing —Keynote Address at the CPC and World Political Parties Summit,” People’s Daily, March 16, 2023, page 2.

 

2. Fang Shinan, “Ecological Environment and Comprehensive Human Development,” Philosophical Research 2(2002): 14.

 

3. Chen Xueming, “Marx’s Theory of People’s All-round Development and Contemporary People’s Life Orientation,” Fudan Journal (Social Sciences) 2 (2000): 18.

 

4. Zhang Kuiliang, “The Deductive Procedure of Marx’s Concept of Human Essence,” Studies on Marxism 11(2014): 68.

 

5. Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), 501.

 

6. Zhang Kuiliang, “The Essence of Man: Marx’s Response to the Highest Philosophical Questions,” Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 5 (2015): 10.

 

7. Song Huifang, “Marx’s Theory of Practical Generation of the Essence of Human and Its Significance,” Studies on Marxism 4 (2019): 107.

 

8. Yan Cunsheng, “Two Levels of Human Nature and the Law,” Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law 1 (2012): 5.

 

9. Hu Yuhong, “Jurisprudential Analysis of Human Sociality,” Law and Social Development 1 (2008): 80.

 

10. Kang Anyi, “A Study on the All-round Development of People,” (Ph.D thesis, Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2004), 65.

 

11. Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), 162.

 

12. Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), 591.

 

13. Gu Xiangwei, “An Analysis of the Contemporary Value of Marx’s Thought on the All-round Development of People,” Studies on the Socialism with Chinese Characteristics 2 (2010): 88.

 

14. Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 20 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1975), 519.

 

15. Jiang Jianqing, “A Study on the Modernization of Harmonious Coexistence between Humans and Nature,”Journal of the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (Chinese Academy of Governance) 5 (2022):13.

 

16. Xi Jinping, Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects: The Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2022), 49-50.

 

17. Wang Xigen and Chen Yilin, “Three Dimensions of the Human Rights Discourse System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Sciences) 3 (2019): 134.

 

18. Li Hongbo, “The Emergence of Environmental Rights and Their Challenge to Traditional Human Rights Concepts,” Chinese Journal of Human Rights 1 (2020): 96.

 

19. Fan Jinxue, “Environmental Rights in Constitutions: A Survey and Analysis Based on Constitutional Texts of Various Countries,” Human Rights 5 (2017): 111.

 

20. Zhang Lu, “The Synergy of Environmental Law and an Ecological Civil Code,” Modern Law Science 2 (2021):181.

 

21. Qian Shuimiao, “On Citizens’ Environmental Rights,” Journal of Hangzhou University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 2 (1994): 43.

 

22. Lv Zhongmei, A New Perspective on the Environmental Law (Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2000), 147 and 150.

 

23. Liu Changxing, “The Personal Rights Law Approach to the Protection of Environmental Rights: Also on the Reflection of the Green Principles in the Book of Personal Rights of the Civil Code,” Law Review 3 (2019):168.

 

24. Hu Jing, “Relativity of Environmental Rights: Evidence of Purpose Environmental Rights,” Human Rights 3(2022): 126.

 

25. Xi Jinping, Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2017), 11.

 

26. Wang Xiaodong, et al., “The People Are the Country and the Country Is the People: General Secretary Xi Jinping’s Important Discourse on Putting the People at the Center,” People’s Daily, June 28, 2021, page 1.

 

27. Yang Zhaoxia, “On the Nature of Environmental Rights,” China Legal Science 2 (2020): 302.

 

28. Zhang Lu, “The Shaping of Environmental Rights Guided by the Needs for a Better Life,” Human Rights 6(2021): 130.

 

29. Qin Tianbao, “On the Concept of Environmental Rights in China in the New Era,” Law and Social Development 3 (2022): 8.

 

30. Kang Anyi, “A Study on the All-round Development of People,” (Ph.D thesis, Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2004), 67.

 

31. Zhang Wenxian, “Human Rights Jurisprudence in the New Era,” Human Rights 3 (2019): 18.

 

32. Tim Hayward, Constitutional Environmental Rights, Zhou Shangjun and Yang Tianjiang trans. (Beijing: Law Press · China, 2014), 20-21.

 

33. Cui Jianxia, “The Reconstruction of Environmental Rights: On the Right to Environmental Survival and the Right to Environmental Development and Their Realization,” Journal of Shandong University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 6 (2019): 154.

 

34. Ye Chuanxing, “Analysis of the Concept of the Right to Development: Between Politics and Law,” Dongyue Tribune 12 (2019): 161.

 

35. Joseph Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, Jia Yongmin trans. (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2019), 59.

 

36. Duan Lei, “The Start of Environmental Protection in New China: A Historical Survey of Pollution Control in Guanting Reservoir in the Early 1970s,” Hebei Academic Journal 5 (2015): 62.

 

37. Xi Jinping, “Principles That Must be Adhered to in Strengthening the Construction of Ecological Civilization,” in The Governance of China, vol. 3 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2020), 362.

 

38. Li Ganjie, “The Red Line of Ecological Protection: Ensuring the Lifeline of National Security,” Qiushi 2(2014): 45.

 

39. Qin Changbo et al., “The ‘Three Lines and One List’ Ecological and Environmental Zoning and Control System: Process and Prospects,” Chinese Journal of Environmental Management 5 (2021): 151.

 

40. Shi Haijia et al., “Thoughts on the Construction of Regional Environmental Management and Control System Based on ‘Red Line of Ecological Protection, Bottom Line of Environmental Quality, and Top Line of Resource Utilization’,” Environmental Impact Assessment 5 (2018): 24.

 

41. Qin Changbo, “The ‘Three Lines and One List’ Ecological and Environmental Zoning and Control System:Process and Prospects,” 155.

 

42. Wang Yanan, “The Significance and Key Links of the ‘Three Lines and One List’ in Restructuring the Environmental Access System,” Chinese Journal of Environmental Management 1 (2020): 15.

 

43. Wang Zishu et al., “Technical Methods and System for Ecological Environment Zoning and Control of the‘Three Lines and One List’,” Environmental Impact Assessment 5 (2020): 7.

 

44. Zhang Yifei et al., “Several Suggestions for Improving the Effectiveness of the Ecological Environment Access List in the ‘Three Lines and One List’,” Chinese Journal of Environmental Management 6 (2020): 37.

 

45. Liu Chao, “Construction of a Space Legal System for the Section of Pollution Control in the Environmental Code,” Legal Forum 2 (2022): 20.

 

46. Xi Jinping, On Adhering to the Harmonious Coexistence between Humans and Nature (Beijing: Central Literature Press, 2022), 265.

 

47. Lv Zhongmei, “Seeking New Jurisprudence for Legislation in the Yangtze River Basin: From the Perspective of Methodology,” Journal of Political Science and Law 6 (2018): 72.

 

48. Liu Jinyang, “On the Debate between Holism and Reductionism,” Journal of Renmin University of China 3(2014): 64.

 

49. Du Yin and Gao Ying, “From Reductionism, Holism to Systematicism: Reflections on the Methodology of Environmental Law,” Journal of Guizhou University (Social Sciences) 2 (2012): 78.

 

50. Gao Lihong and Li Peipei, “Ancient Legal System of Basin Ecological Governance in China and Its Inspirations for Modern Times,” Journal of Jishou University (Social Sciences) 6 (2018): 52.

 

51. Zhang Lu, “Energy Development Regulations in the Legislation of Yellow River Protection,” Gansu Social Sciences 2 (2022): 81.

 

52. Yue Xiaohua, “A Systematic Approach to Regional Ecological Protection Legislation in the Context of the Codification of the Environmental Code,” Hebei Law Science 11 (2022): 130-131.

 

53. Xi Jinping, On the Harmonious Coexistence between Humans and Nature (Beijing: Central Party Literature Press, 2022), 234.

 

54. Wang Jin and Wu Kaijie, “Functional Orientation and Legislative Significance of the National Park Law:Based on the Construction of Legal System for China’s Natural Protected Areas,” Journal of Social Sciences of Hunan Normal University 3 (2020): 17.

 

55. Wu Kaijie, “The National Park Law Should Be the ‘Benchmark Law’ in the Nature Reserve Law System,”Journal of Central South University (Social Sciences) 5 (2022): 21.

 

56. Gong Gu, “Legal Requirements and Code Expressions for Overall Governance of Mountains, Rivers, Forests, Fields, Lakes, Grassland and Deserts,” Oriental Law 1 (2022): 118.

 

57. Wang Jinnan et al., “Clear Waters and Green Mountains Are as Valuable as Mountains of Gold and Silver:The Theoretical Connotation and Innovation of Its Realization Mechanism,” Environmental Protection 11(2017): 14.

 

58. Lester E. Brown, Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth, Lin Zixin and Ji Shouzhi trans. (Beijing:Oriental Publishing Co., Ltd., 2002), 86.

 

59. Wang Jinnan et al., “Clear Waters and Green Mountains Are as Valuable as Mountains of Gold and Silver:The Theoretical Connotation and Innovation of Its Realization Mechanism,” Environmental Protection 11(2017): 13.

 

60. Dong Zhanfeng, et al., “Analysis of the Practice Model and Path of the Concept of ‘Clear Waters and Green Mountains Are as Valuable as Mountains of Gold and Silver’,” Chinese Journal of Environmental Management 5 (2020): 17.

 

61. Cui Jianyuan, Research on Quasi-Property Rights (Beijing: Law Press · China, 2003), 35.