宅基地“三权分置”的逻辑起点、政策要义及入法路径
|
摘要
研究目的:厘清宅基地"三权分置"改革的逻辑起点及政策要义,并探索其入法路径。研究方法:文义解释、结构解释和原意解释。研究结果:宅基地"三权分置"改革的新思路是针对"两权分离"架构下宅基地改革无法破解宅基地使用权的身份性"架空"其物权性这一突出问题提出的,它以既要坚持宅基地制度的农村住房保障功能,又要让宅基地活起来为改革目标,以打破现行宅基地使用权既是身份性居住保障权又是物权性财产权"两权复合"的结构为改革突破口,以宅基地资格权独立成权并承载农民居住保障功能、现行宅基地使用权转型纯化为典型用益物权并承载资产功能为主要改革内容。研究结论:宅基地"三权分置"入法,首先应在《民法总则》列举的民事权利类型这个坐标系中对宅基地"三权"分别进行定性,确定其各自所归属的权利类型,在此基础上,将宅基地"三权分置"的制度创新成果联接融入相应的民事权利制度体系中。
The purpose of this paper is to define the policy implication of tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land, and to explore its path to the legal system. The methods employed are content interpretation, structural interpretation and interpretation of originalism. The results indicate that the new thoughts on tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land were put forward under the guidance of the prominent problem that the pilot reform of rural residential land under the framework of ‘Separation of Ownership and Use Right' failed to solve the issue that the identity value of rural residential land use right empties its property value. It obeys the policy goal of sticking to rural residential security function of rural residential land, making land use more efficient. Taking the breaking of the composite structure of current rural residential land use right, that is, the identity right of residential security combined with the property right as a breakthrough, the goal is to realize the independence of qualification right of rural residential land, to take the qualification right of farmers as the guarantee of residential security, and to transform and purify rural residential land use right into a typical usufructuary right to work as asset function. It is concluded that, to integrate tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land into legal system, first of all, the "three rights" should be defined respectively within the scope of civil rights enumerated in "General Provisions of Civil Law" to identity the categories of the rights. On this basis, the innovation results of tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land should be integrated into the civil rights system.
The purpose of this paper is to define the policy implication of tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land, and to explore its path to the legal system. The methods employed are content interpretation, structural interpretation and interpretation of originalism. The results indicate that the new thoughts on tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land were put forward under the guidance of the prominent problem that the pilot reform of rural residential land under the framework of ‘Separation of Ownership and Use Right' failed to solve the issue that the identity value of rural residential land use right empties its property value. It obeys the policy goal of sticking to rural residential security function of rural residential land, making land use more efficient. Taking the breaking of the composite structure of current rural residential land use right, that is, the identity right of residential security combined with the property right as a breakthrough, the goal is to realize the independence of qualification right of rural residential land, to take the qualification right of farmers as the guarantee of residential security, and to transform and purify rural residential land use right into a typical usufructuary right to work as asset function. It is concluded that, to integrate tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land into legal system, first of all, the "three rights" should be defined respectively within the scope of civil rights enumerated in "General Provisions of Civil Law" to identity the categories of the rights. On this basis, the innovation results of tripartite entitlement system of rural residential land should be integrated into the civil rights system.
引文
[1]丁文.论土地承包权与土地承包经营权的分离[J].中国法学,2015(3):159-178.
[2]潘俊.农村土地“三权分置”:权利内容与风险防范[J].中州学刊,2014,215(11):67-73.
[3]朱广新.土地承包权与经营权分离的政策意蕴与法制完善[J].法学,2015(11):88-100.
[4]孙宪忠.推进农地三权分置经营模式的立法研究[J].中国社会科学,2016(7):145-163,208-209.
[5]宋志红.宅基地“三权分置”的法律内涵和制度设计[J].法学评论,2018,36(4):142-153.
[6]席志国.民法典编纂视域中宅基地“三权分置”探究[J].行政管理改革,2018(4):45-50.
[7]夏沁.农村宅基地“三权分置”改革的立法实现[J].地方立法研究,2018,3(4):104-116.
[8]岳永兵.宅基地“三权分置”:一个引入配给权的分析框架[J].中国国土资源经济,2018,31(1):34-38.
[9]徐忠国,卓跃飞,吴次芳,等.农村宅基地三权分置的经济解释与法理演绎[J].中国土地科学,2018,32(8):16-22.
[10]张菡冰,李翔,柳乾坤,等.宅基地使用权去身份化改革的两难困局及其突破[J].中国土地科学,2015,29(8):49-54.
[11]董祚继.“三权分置”——农村宅基地制度的重大创新[J].中国土地,2018(3):4-9.
(1)学界对承包地“三权分置”已展开了广泛讨论,围绕土地承包权和土地经营权的关系,主要形成了两种代表性思路,一是“分离论”,即通过制度重构,将现行土地承包经营权一分为二,以土地承包权、土地经营权取代之[1-2];另一种观点则可称为“设立论”,即认为时下所说的土地承包权指的就是现行土地承包经营权,土地经营权是由土地承包经营权人为社会主体设立的下级用益物权[3-4]。这些讨论为宅基地“三权分置”的探讨提供了思路和养分。
(2)2018年6月20日,浙江省绍兴市上虞区不动产登记服务中心为绍兴上虞大通市场发展有限公司颁发了全国首本宅基地及房屋租赁使用权证书。
(1)2017年10月31日,全国人大农业与农村委员会副主任委员刘振伟在十二届全国人大常委会第三十次会议的全体会议上作关于《〈中华人民共和国农村土地承包法修正案(草案)〉的说明》,明确提出:“土地集体所有权与承包经营权是承包地处于未流转状态的一组权利,是两权分离;土地集体所有权与土地承包权、土地经营权是承包地处于流转状态的一组权利,是三权分置。”不难看出,旌德和象山对宅基地“三权分置”的理解,与刘振伟的说明在逻辑上如出一撤,即都是以流转与否来区分“两权分离”与“三权分置”,未流转时保持“两权分离”不变,而流转后则转向“三权分置”。
(2)关于这一认识,笔者拟另行文深入探讨。
[2]潘俊.农村土地“三权分置”:权利内容与风险防范[J].中州学刊,2014,215(11):67-73.
[3]朱广新.土地承包权与经营权分离的政策意蕴与法制完善[J].法学,2015(11):88-100.
[4]孙宪忠.推进农地三权分置经营模式的立法研究[J].中国社会科学,2016(7):145-163,208-209.
[5]宋志红.宅基地“三权分置”的法律内涵和制度设计[J].法学评论,2018,36(4):142-153.
[6]席志国.民法典编纂视域中宅基地“三权分置”探究[J].行政管理改革,2018(4):45-50.
[7]夏沁.农村宅基地“三权分置”改革的立法实现[J].地方立法研究,2018,3(4):104-116.
[8]岳永兵.宅基地“三权分置”:一个引入配给权的分析框架[J].中国国土资源经济,2018,31(1):34-38.
[9]徐忠国,卓跃飞,吴次芳,等.农村宅基地三权分置的经济解释与法理演绎[J].中国土地科学,2018,32(8):16-22.
[10]张菡冰,李翔,柳乾坤,等.宅基地使用权去身份化改革的两难困局及其突破[J].中国土地科学,2015,29(8):49-54.
[11]董祚继.“三权分置”——农村宅基地制度的重大创新[J].中国土地,2018(3):4-9.
(1)学界对承包地“三权分置”已展开了广泛讨论,围绕土地承包权和土地经营权的关系,主要形成了两种代表性思路,一是“分离论”,即通过制度重构,将现行土地承包经营权一分为二,以土地承包权、土地经营权取代之[1-2];另一种观点则可称为“设立论”,即认为时下所说的土地承包权指的就是现行土地承包经营权,土地经营权是由土地承包经营权人为社会主体设立的下级用益物权[3-4]。这些讨论为宅基地“三权分置”的探讨提供了思路和养分。
(2)2018年6月20日,浙江省绍兴市上虞区不动产登记服务中心为绍兴上虞大通市场发展有限公司颁发了全国首本宅基地及房屋租赁使用权证书。
(1)2017年10月31日,全国人大农业与农村委员会副主任委员刘振伟在十二届全国人大常委会第三十次会议的全体会议上作关于《〈中华人民共和国农村土地承包法修正案(草案)〉的说明》,明确提出:“土地集体所有权与承包经营权是承包地处于未流转状态的一组权利,是两权分离;土地集体所有权与土地承包权、土地经营权是承包地处于流转状态的一组权利,是三权分置。”不难看出,旌德和象山对宅基地“三权分置”的理解,与刘振伟的说明在逻辑上如出一撤,即都是以流转与否来区分“两权分离”与“三权分置”,未流转时保持“两权分离”不变,而流转后则转向“三权分置”。
(2)关于这一认识,笔者拟另行文深入探讨。