近现代行政法中，法律和行政权的关系呈现出阶段性变化。现代行政管理功能的扩张，凸显了行政权的公共性和管理性，使得以“自由主义”为思想基础、“概念法学”为基本研究方法、“司法审查”为基本控权路径的传统行政法受到挑战。行政法学研究存在规范主义和功能主义两个基本立场，前者将控制行政权力当作行政法的基本任务，本质是“控权法”；后者将规范、调整行政活动当作行政法的基本任务，本质是“保权法”。规范主义和功能主义的立场之争贯穿了行政法学的主线研究。环境行政权是行政机关在环境保护行政管理活动中，按照法律之授权范围，依照法律之规则、原则，执行环境保护行政任务所使用的行政权力。它的内涵不仅包括行政执行权、还包括准立法权和准司法权。功能主义推动了环境行政管理措施的发展与变革，现代环境行政规制发展出了“命令—控制”、“引导—激励”、“沟通—商谈”三种规制模式，功能主义之过度发展导致环境行政权运行的规范性缺失。传统“规范主义”以“行政处分—司法审查”作为“控权”轴心，“规范主义”下的环境行政权约束框架可概括为：法律保留原则对权力运行范围的约束；行政行为理论对权力运行方式的约束；司法审查对权力的外部约束，这一权力约束框架无法满足现代环境行政活动的规范化需求。行政法学研究的趋势转向为融合规范主义与功能主义的“新行政法”，环境行政权之规范化应当借鉴其中的法律原则、行政行为法、行政程序法、行政组织法等理论，构建“合法、合理、民主”的复合型“控权”框架。

In modern administrative law, the relationship between law and administrative power shows a phased change. The expansion of modern administrative function highlights the publicness and management of administrative power, which has challenged the traditional administrative law with liberalism as its ideological basis, conceptual jurisprudence as its basic research method, and judicial review of administrative action as its basic legal control path. There are two basic standpoints in the research on administrative law, normative jurisprudence and utilitarian jurisprudence. With control of administration law as its essence, the former regards the control of administration as the basic task of administrative law. While the latter, which regards the regulation and adjustment of administrative activities as the basic task of administrative law, is in essence the law of protection of administrative power. The debate between normative jurisprudence and utilitarian jurisprudence runs through the main line of the research on administrative jurisprudence.The administrative power of environment refers to the administrative power used by administrative organs in carrying out environmental protection administrative tasks in accordance with the scope authorized by law and the rules and principles of law in environmental protection administrative activities. Its connotation includes not only executive power, but also quasi-legislative power and quasi-judicial power. As the respond to environmental crisis, modern environmental law came into being in the thought of social law in the 1950s. The basic purpose of environmental law is to protect people’s health and maintain their living environment, and it is basically oriented to the environmental public interest and the social effect of law, with utilitarian jurisprudence as its basic standpoint. Utilitarian jurisprudence has promoted the development and reform of environmental administrative means, and shaped the new relationship structure among the state, market and society in environmental administrative activities. Based on the different functional mechanism of administrative power, modern environmental administrative regulation has developed three modes, command-control, guidance-incentive, and communication-negotiation. Moreover, both of the latter two regulation modes have broken through not only the unequal and unilateral legal relationship of administrative power and civil obligation in traditional administrative law, but also the administrative sanction in traditional administrative law in the form of administrative acts. Therefore, the simple judicial control mechanism has been unable to solve the problem of legalization and standardization of environmental administrative power.As the traditional normative jurisprudence with administrative punishment- judicial review of administrative action as the axis of legal control, the abstract theories of administrative acts have simplified the legitimacy judgment of judicial review on administrative activities. The restraint framework of administrative power of environment under normative jurisprudence can be summarized as the restraint of the principle of legal reservation on the scope of power operation, the restraint of administrative acts theory on the mode of power operation, and the external restraint of judicial review on administrative power. However, the legal control framework can lead to the lack of substantive rationality of law. The new normalized path for administrative power of environment and resources should follow the trend of ‘New Administrative Law’, includes administrative acts law, basic legal principles, administrative procedure law, administrative organization law. Establish the power constraint framework based on legality and legitimacy of environmental administration.