检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:杜万平[1]
出 处:《暨南学报(哲学社会科学版)》2007年第3期84-89,共6页Jinan Journal(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
摘 要:近年来,有关生态法学研究的著述和论文不断增多。有学者认为相对于“环境法学”而言,“生态法学”才是一个更为科学和确切的名称,两者不仅在称谓上存在差异,在内容上也有本质的不同。然而,仔细分析上述观点的理由,可以发现两者在内容上并没有本质的不同。也有学者从生态法学调整人与自然的关系,一切生命体均是法律主体出发,论证生态法学的独立地位。这种论证由于涉及到整个法律主体理论的重大争议,因此难于被人接受和认同,而且作为一个学科名称,“环境法学”为国际国内沿用已久。因此,没有必要用生态法学来取代环境法学。More and more papers and books about Ecological Law have appeared constantly in recent years. Most scholars think that that there isn't notable difference between the Ecological Law and Environmental Law. But there also exists a kind of viewpoint which holds that the Ecological Law and Environmental Law have essential differences in the content. Through careful examination, a different conclusion comes out. Some scholars think the Ecological Law regulates the relationship between the human and the nature and all lives should have qualification of legal subject, so the Ecological Law is a new research field. But this radical argument hasn't theoretical stringency because it lacks sufficient demonstration.
分 类 号:D912.61[政治法律—环境与资源保护法学]
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.49