Ownership has been a key tool in the exploitation of nature for centuries. However, ownership could also shield natural entities from extraction and pollution if it were vested in them, rather than in humans or corporations. Through a case study of German constitutional property law, this article examines the normative content of this constitutional right. It argues that in owning themselves, natural entities would have numerous tools to fend off human interference with their self-determination. Constitutional property law would require any harmful activity affecting the natural entity to be based upon legislation and necessary to achieve a public purpose. The natural entity would enjoy broader access to justice. Courts would also often award appropriate remedies; where the natural entity would be awarded only compensation, this would be unsatisfactory because money cannot replace nature. The article finds that constitutional property law offers the potential for further protection from human interference, which has not been realized because of anthropocentric value judgments prevalent in German legal doctrine. Ecocentric approaches to ownership and invalidity as a standard remedy would play an important role in unlocking the full potential of ownership for environmental protection.

几个世纪以来，所有权一直是利用自然的关键工具。然而，如果所有权属于自然实体，而不是人类或公司，那么所有权也可以保护自然实体免受开采和污染。本文通过对德国宪法财产法的案例研究，考察这一宪法权利的规范内容。它认为，在拥有自己的过程中，自然实体将拥有许多工具来抵御人类对其自决的干扰。宪法财产法将要求任何影响自然实体的有害活动以立法为基础，并且是实现公共目的所必需的。自然实体将享有更广泛的诉诸司法的机会。法院通常也会判给适当的补救措施；如果自然实体将仅获得补偿，这将不能令人满意，因为金钱无法取代自然。文章发现，宪法财产法提供了进一步保护免受人为干预的潜力，由于德国法律学说中普遍存在以人类为中心的价值判断，这一点尚未实现。以生态为中心的所有权和无效性方法作为标准补救措施，将在释放所有权的全部潜力以保护环境方面发挥重要作用。