發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-23 17:28

【摘要】：我國(guó)實(shí)行土地的社會(huì)主義公有制,意味著我國(guó)只存在兩種土地所有權(quán)——國(guó)家土地所有權(quán)和集體土地所有權(quán)。我國(guó)的海域?qū)儆趪?guó)家所有。由于國(guó)家和集體都是較為抽象的概念,這使得土地和海域的所有者往往不具有直接使用土地和海域的能力,因此必須將其上的一部分權(quán)能分離出來(lái)讓渡給具體的權(quán)利主體,以實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)土地和海域的充分利用。土地使用權(quán)和海域使用權(quán)于是產(chǎn)生。 現(xiàn)今社會(huì)中,隨著城市建設(shè)步伐的加快,社會(huì)公共事業(yè)的不斷發(fā)展與推進(jìn),以公共利益為由收回未到期的土地使用權(quán)和海域使用權(quán)的現(xiàn)象不斷出現(xiàn),并呈增多趨勢(shì)。但是我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的法律并未系統(tǒng)地對(duì)收回這一行為進(jìn)行規(guī)范,而是將各種性質(zhì)差異很大的收回一并規(guī)定,使得對(duì)概念的理解出現(xiàn)偏差,亦給實(shí)踐問(wèn)題的處理帶來(lái)不便。公益性提前收回在實(shí)踐中常與征收聯(lián)系在一起,但在征收與收回關(guān)系的問(wèn)題上卻存在分歧,理解不一,處理實(shí)踐問(wèn)題思路混亂,在一定程度上導(dǎo)致了糾紛頻繁,如已然成為社會(huì)焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題的房拆糾紛。 本文所要討論的核心問(wèn)題是收回與征收的關(guān)系。就學(xué)界不能達(dá)成一致意見(jiàn)的“收回是否應(yīng)屬于可屬于征收之一種”的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析。 本文通過(guò)五個(gè)部分展開(kāi)論述這一問(wèn)題。首先,介紹國(guó)有土地使用權(quán)、海域使用權(quán)的產(chǎn)生背景及其價(jià)值,并就收回制度產(chǎn)生的必然性和現(xiàn)行的法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行說(shuō)明,明確討論的中心為因公共利益提前收回的情形；其次,陳述學(xué)界關(guān)于征收和收回關(guān)系的爭(zhēng)議,指出爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn)所在,點(diǎn)明全文所討論的核心問(wèn)題；再次,對(duì)當(dāng)前制度安排下的現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行呈現(xiàn)；而后對(duì)現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析,總結(jié)存在的主要問(wèn)題,并對(duì)其原因進(jìn)行分析論述,明確表明當(dāng)前制度之不足,指出收回應(yīng)當(dāng)為征收所吸收；最后,對(duì)收回為征收所吸收的可行性進(jìn)行分析,從權(quán)力的來(lái)源和正當(dāng)性、收回客體本身、征收與收回的特征和客體的對(duì)照等角度細(xì)致論述,以說(shuō)明收回不僅應(yīng)當(dāng)為征收所吸收,并且這具有可行性,是得以實(shí)現(xiàn)的。期望通過(guò)本文的研究,對(duì)征收和收回的內(nèi)涵有更清晰的認(rèn)識(shí),對(duì)理論研究和實(shí)踐問(wèn)題的解決有所助益。
[Abstract]:The socialist public ownership of land means that there are only two kinds of land ownership in our country: state land ownership and collective land ownership. The sea area of our country belongs to the state. Since both the State and the collective are more abstract concepts, which often render the owners of land and sea areas incapable of direct use of the land and sea areas, it is necessary to separate some of their powers from them to specific subjects of rights, In order to achieve the full use of land and sea areas. The right to use land and the right to use the sea came into being. In today's society, with the acceleration of urban construction and the continuous development and promotion of social public utilities, the phenomenon of recovering the right to use land and sea areas which is not due to the expiration of the public interest is constantly appearing, and showing an increasing trend. However, the current law of our country does not systematically regulate the recovery of this behavior, but the different nature of the withdrawal together with the provisions, which makes the understanding of the concept deviation, but also brings inconvenience to the handling of practical problems. Public welfare early recovery is often associated with expropriation in practice, but there are differences in the relationship between expropriation and recovery, different understanding, confusion in handling practical problems, which leads to frequent disputes to some extent. Such as has become a social focus of the demolition dispute. The core issue discussed in this paper is the relationship between recovery and levy. This paper analyzes whether recovery should be one of expropriation, which can not be agreed by academic circles. This paper discusses this problem through five parts. Firstly, it introduces the background and value of the right to use state-owned land, the right to use the sea area, and explains the inevitability of the recovery system and the current legal provisions. It is clear that the focus of the discussion is the situation of early recovery due to the public interest. It points out the focal point of the dispute, points out the core issues discussed in the paper; thirdly, presents the current situation under the current system arrangement; and then analyzes the current situation. Summing up the main problems, analyzing the reasons, pointing out the deficiency of the current system, pointing out that the recovery should be absorbed by the expropriation; finally, the feasibility of the recovery for the expropriation is analyzed. From the angle of the source and legitimacy of the power, the object itself, the characteristics of expropriation and recovery and the contrast of the object, this paper discusses in detail that the recovery should not only be absorbed by the expropriation, but also feasible and realized. It is expected that through the study of this paper, the connotation of expropriation and recovery will be more clearly understood, and it will be helpful to the theoretical research and practical problem solving.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D922.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 朱廣新;;房屋征收補(bǔ)償范圍與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的思考[J];法學(xué);2011年05期

2 李俊杰;張國(guó)敏;;論國(guó)有土地使用權(quán)的性質(zhì)[J];河北法學(xué);2006年03期

3 張先貴;;論國(guó)有土地使用權(quán)征收補(bǔ)償規(guī)范體系設(shè)計(jì)——以“土地中心主義”取代“房屋中心主義”為立法理念[J];私法研究;2012年01期

4 李yN恒;金儉;;國(guó)有土地使用權(quán)“收回”之質(zhì)疑[J];學(xué)術(shù)界;2011年08期

5 劉俊;;土地所有權(quán)權(quán)利結(jié)構(gòu)重構(gòu)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2006年03期

6 朱廣新;;物權(quán)法不宜規(guī)定征收、征用制度[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2006年03期

7 金偉峰;;論房屋征收中國(guó)有土地使用權(quán)的補(bǔ)償[J];浙江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年02期

8 金儉;;國(guó)有土地使用權(quán)收回制度重構(gòu)[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2140117