The independent status of environmental law as a distinct legal department is not merely a question of classification within the legal system. But more importantly, it concerns the jurisprudential basis and institutional legitimacy of national ecological civilization construction. Within the context of the Constitution establishing the basic principles of ecological civilization, environmental law has transcended its previous accessory nature to administration, demonstrating an independent normative structure centered on ecological interests and based on obligations. Its object of regulation is manifested in the specialized protection of public commons. And its regulatory methods are characterized by public law dominance and comprehensive coordination. Its value order takes “humans and nature sharing a common future” as its core concept. The advancement of environmental law codification requires internal logical consistency and external institutional differentiation within the system, and the confirmation of environmental law’s independence is the theoretical prerequisite for this process. Comparative legal experience indicates that codification and systematized independence complement each other. For instance, Japan’s environmental legal system, achieved departmental independence through large-scale legislation and disciplinary systematization. China’s particularity lies in the constitutional inclusion of ecological civilization. Which endows environmental law with constitutional legitimacy, making it an irreplaceable component within the national governance system. Establishing the independent status of environmental law is both a theoretical self-consciousness in response to the issues of our time and an institutional innovation aimed at reshaping the legal structure.
References
[1] Hansen, M. H., Li, H., Svarverud, R. (2018) Ecological civilization: Interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future. Global Environmental Change, 53, 195-203.
[2] Tremml, K. (2024) Creating legitimacy and exercising political power: an analysis of the functions of the Chinese constitutional preamble based on a linguistic study. Complexity Thinking and China’s Demography within and Beyond Mainland China: A Geopolitical Overview, 129-154.
[3] Shen, H. (2022) Environmental constitutionalism with Chinese characteristics. Journal of Environmental Law, 34(2), 353-361.
[4] Du, Q., Ding, N., Li, J. (2025) Status and development of natural resources law in the codification of environmental law. Environmental Law Codification in China: Paradigm Change in Environmental Legislation, 137-165.
[5] Poldnikov, D. (2020) The formalistic pattern of Soviet civil codification as a chapter in European legal history. Journal on European History of Law, 11(1), 53-60.
[6] Gillett, M. (2025) Ecocide, environmental harm and framework integration at the International Criminal Court. The International Journal of Human Rights, 29(6), 1009-1045.
[7] Michalovič, M., Maslen, M. (2024) Advocating for environmental law-grounds for its status as an independent branch of law in Slovak legal doctrine. Prawne Problemy Górnictwa i Ochrony Środowiska, (2), 1-26.
[8] Karkkainen, B. C. (2019) Information as environmental regulation: TRI and performance benchmarking, precursor to a new paradigm? Environmental Law, 191-304.
[9] Malloy, T. H. (2022) Territorial or non-territorial autonomy: the tools for governing diversity. The Routledge Handbook of Comparative Territorial Autonomies, 48-66.
[10] Taekema, S. (2018) Theoretical and normative frameworks for legal research: Putting theory into practice. Law and Method, (2), 1-17.
[11] Pearson, K. (2025) The grammar of science. Scientific Methodology in Nineteenth Century Britain, 221-232.
[12] Weng, Y., Li, W. (2025). Navigating global economic dynamics: institutional innovation and rule of law in China’s pilot free trade zones. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16(2), 6665-6686.
[13] Zhou, K., Luo, H., Qu, Z. (2023) What can the environmental rule of law do for environmental innovation? Evidence from environmental tribunals in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189, 122377.
[14] Zhao, L., Zhao, R. (2025) Ecological rule of law and enterprise green innovation – evidence from China’s environmental courts. Journal of Environmental Management, 374, 124081.
[15] Zhang, L., Li, X. (2018) Changing institutions for environmental policy and politics in New Era China. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 16(3), 242-251.
[16] Shouqiu, C. A. I., Yi, Z. H. A. N. G. (2021) On the non-exclusive characteristics of public environmental rights. Journal of Jishou University (Social Sciences Edition), 42(3), 73.
[17] Shouqiu, C. A. I., Meng, W. A. N. G. (2020) The environmental law connotation of the idea that. Journal of Jishou University (Social Sciences Edition), 41(4), 30.
[18] Xiaodong, D. (2024) The binary logic of the compilation of the ecological environment code and its unfolding. Social Sciences in China, 45(3), 76-94.
[19] Li, L., Zhou, W. (2019) Governing the “constitutional vacuum” – federalism, rule of law, and politburo politics in China. China Law and Society Review, 4(1), 1-40.
[20] Depoorter, B., Rubin, P. H., Parisi, F. (2017) Judge-made law and the common law process. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics, 3, 129-142.
Share and Cite
Ding, K. (2025) History Research on the Independent Status of Environmental Law as a Distinct Legal Department – A Prerequisite for Its Codification. Journal of Social Development and History, 1(5), 105-117.