| The appropriateness and success of institution construction of natural landscape exploitation legally have close relationship with the extent of civilians’free enjoyment of the natural landscape, and what’s more, the admission and respect of the natural landscape’s values in environmental protection. Simply speaking, institution construction of natural landscape exploitation is the key to the realization of the natural landscape’s embedded public welfare purpose.Since the implementation of General Principles of the Civil Law, due to the publication and implementation of Real Right Law and the revision of Regulations on Scenic Spots, as for natural landscape, a national ownership institution with a single subject and multiple objects has been established in China. Objectively speaking, on one hand, this kind of ownership institution caters to the requirements of Marxist legal theories that our country has stuck to for a long time. On the other hand, natural landscape national ownership institution provides convenience for the masses to enjoy it freely and more importantly offers institutional foundation for the environmental protection of the natural landscape.However, it can’t be denied that first of all there are some inconformity even violations of Real Right Law in the natural landscape national ownership institution.For example, the vagueness in subject of this institution, the unscientific separation of right execution and so on.In addition, when this institution was put into practice, many controversies have occurred, such as difficulties to identify the tortfeasor, illegal and excessive exploitation on natural resources etc.In the author’s opinion, it is hard to solve these problems brought about by this institution in theory and in practice solely relying on the current natural landscape national ownership institution in China.While when constructing natural landscape exploitation institution, both Continental Law System and Anglo-American Law System scrupulously abide by the tradition of Roman Law System, i.e.’private right can’t be established over public property’.Considering the differences between the two major law systems in natural landscape exploitation institution, the author selects two representative law-making cases in the two law systems respectively to make an analysis. The two selected cases are Ownership and Public Property Management and Exploitation Lnstitutions of German National Forest Park and Ownership and Public Property Management and Exploitation Institutions of American National Park.From the author’s perspective, why those problems in China didn’t emerge in German and America is because both of the two counties constructed Ownership of the Legat Person in Public Law and Public Property Management and Exploitation Institutions based Public Law Disposal Right as for natural landscape of their own country.The author deems that China’s natural landscape must be state-owned because only the national government can guarantee the realization of the natural landscape’s embedded public welfare purpose with sufficient resources and authority.Therefore, it’s very essential to improve the current natural landscape national ownership institution in China through the comparison and consideration of relevant institutions in German and America.To put it specific, the solution to this ownership problem lies in the institution reconstruction of transforming government as civil subject into the legal person in Public Law.In order to settle down the controversies about ownership system in practice, for one thing, the power of natural landscape management organization must be simplified; for another, Public Law disposal right must be authorized to the management organization. |
