问题描述：
英语翻译
在环境权私法化尚无法成型的情况下,处于公法下的环境权,应当怎样去弥补自身缺陷,成为了学界广泛讨论的问题.在现有基础下,公益诉讼和行政管理固然是两种相对较为适宜的方式,但其自身仍然存在一定的不足,如在诉讼法中,公益诉讼主体处境尴尬,因为民事诉讼的起诉人资格首先必须是“与案情有直接利害关系”,而公益诉讼往往起诉方是为公共利益进行诉讼.此外,在许多无明文规定的条件下,案件的审判标准难以统一,法院经常会以此由判定起诉方败诉,如南京违规搭建紫金山观景台案.而行政管理也存在一定的漏洞,如虫草挖掘,只需缴纳一定费用,就可持续挖掘,其破坏环境的本质并没有变.在此基础上,笔者认为,进一步的建立健全两项制度,使其正常运转并发挥作用,而不是寻求将环境权私法化,是较为妥当的.在此前提下,引入功利主义的价值衡量原则,对于解决冲突,有着很重要的借鉴价值.
问题解答：
我来补答
帮你翻译了好半天啊,In the environmental right of private law cannot be molded case in public law, the environmental right, should be how to make up its own shortcomings, become extensive academic discussion. Based on the existing foundation, public interest litigation and administrative management are two relatively suitable way, but it still has some drawbacks, such as in procedural law, subject of public interest litigation in an awkward position, because the civil prosecution must first be "direct interest" with the case, and the public interest litigation often the prosecution is the litigation for public interest. In addition, in many not stipulated conditions, the trial court is often hard to unify the criteria, as determined by the prosecution case, such as the Nanjing Purple Mountain Observatory cases of illegal structures. But the administration has some flaws, such as Cordyceps mining, only need to pay a fee, sustainable mining, the destruction of the environment and does not change the nature. On this basis, the author thinks, further establish and improve the two systems, so that the normal operation and play a role, rather than seeking to environmental right of private law, is more appropriate. Under this premise, we introduce the principle of utilitarian value, to resolve the conflict, has a very important reference value.
