我国《物权法》与《侵权责任法》在形式上沿袭了大陆法系通过相邻关系与侵权责任应对环境侵害的“双轨模式”。但比较中外“双轨模式”形成的制度背景,不难发现《物权法》第90条的规定与域外立法例具有本质差异,《侵权责任法》第8章也存在过于泛化的现象,需要通过解释论厘清二者的适用关系。一个可能的路径是,将第90条视为导向性条款,通过单行立法确定不同规范对象的构成要件,再由受侵害人选择适用物权请求权或侵权请求权,从而既能化解学说与实践的悖论,又能适应不同侵害类型的特质。 China’s “Property Law” and “Tort Liability Law” formally follow the “dual track mode” of the civil law system to deal with environmental violations through its neighboring relations and tort liability. However, comparing the institutional background formed by the “dual track model” in China and other countries, it is not difficult to find that there is an essential difference between the provisions of Article 90 of the Property Law and the legislation outside the territory. The Chapter 8 of Tort Liability Law also needs to be over-generalized Explain the applicable relationship between the two by means of interpretation. One possible approach is to treat Article 90 as a guiding clause, to determine the constitutional requirements of different normative objects through the legislation of a single bank, and then the aggrieved person may choose to apply the right of claim or the right of infringement to both dissolve doctrine and practice Paradox, but also to adapt to different types of violations of traits.