论基于物权路径引入发展权之不可行性

发布时间：2018-04-16 08:40

本文选题：土地法学 + 发展权　；参考：《中国土地科学》2015年04期

【摘要】：研究目的:通过比较分析,揭示基于物权路径引入发展权之不可行性,以期为发展权本土化研究路径的改进提供思路。研究方法:比较分析法,文献分析法。研究结果:在立法技术层面,根植于产权范式的发展权,不具备物权客体之要件,并与物权法定和所有权单一性原则相冲突。在法律逻辑层面,TDR实施的个案性与物权的对世性相矛盾,所引证的双重所有权理论和英国发展权国有化的规定失之于偏颇,土地用途管制是国家行使规划权而非发展权的结果,试图藉由地方性法规创设发展权的思路也不符合《立法法》之规定。研究结论:基于物权路径引入发展权是不可行的,未来应抛弃"机械式"移植观,沿着准物权和提高管制效率的方向,探索引入发展权的可能路径与方案。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to reveal the infeasibility of introducing the right to development based on the path of real right through comparative analysis in order to provide a way to improve the localization of the right to development.Methods: comparative analysis, literature analysis.The research result: at the legislative technical level, the right to development rooted in the paradigm of property right does not possess the elements of the object of real right, and conflicts with the principle of property law and the principle of the singularity of ownership.In the aspect of legal logic, the case of TDR is inconsistent with the universal nature of real right, and the theory of dual ownership and the nationalization of the right to development in Britain are biased. The land use control is the result of the country exercising the right to plan rather than the right to development.The idea of trying to create the right to development by means of local laws and regulations is also inconsistent with the provisions of the Legislative Law.The conclusion is that it is not feasible to introduce the right to development based on the path of real right. In the future, we should abandon the concept of "mechanical" transplantation and explore the possible path and scheme of introducing the right to development along the direction of quasi-real right and improving the efficiency of control.
【作者单位】：深圳市数字城市工程研究中心;国土资源部城市土地资源监测与仿真重点实验室;
【基金】：国土资源部公益性行业科研专项经费(201411014-4)
【分类号】：D913

【参考文献】