我国宪法中财产征收条款完善研究

发布时间：2018-06-17 03:56

本文选题：征收条款 + 公共利益　；参考：《湖北大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国宪法2004年修改后,有了很大的进步,但笔者认为还存在很多缺陷需要完善,本文旨在从三个方面对其进行完善。首先,笔者主要论述国家产生和存在的基础和古代国家征收的实践,得出国家固有征收权不需要宪法的授予,再通过对比分析资本主义国家的宪法论证了宪法中的征收条款应是限制国家征收权的条款,从而提出应将宪法中授予国家征收权改为限制国家征收权。其次,主要通过五个方面论证了征收时不需要区分是否需以公共利益为目的。一是集体土地所有权不是私法意义上的私人权利,不应当享受私法意义上的私人权利应有的保护。二是区分“公共利益”和“非公共利益”会导致分配上的非正义结果。三是区分“公共利益”和“非公共利益”会降低整体效率,影响城镇化现代化的进程。四是公共利益原则与制度需求有矛盾。五是实践中“公共利益”处于有名无实的状态,根本不能起到防止滥用征收征用权的作用。还论证了需增加正当程序原则来限制征收权。从而提出取消征收需以公共利益为目的,增加正当程序原则来限制征收权。再次,主要从两个方面论证了我国应采用公平补偿原则。一方面从正面论述采用公平补偿原则的理由,另一方面从反面论述不采用其他补偿原则的理由。从而提出我国财产征收应采用公平补偿原则。最后得出结论,我国宪法中财产征收条款第十条就应该修改为国家以正当程序对土地实行征收或者征用时必须给予公平补偿,第十三条应该修改为国家以正当程序对公民的私有财产实行征收或者征用时必须给予公平补偿。
[Abstract]:After our constitution was amended in 2004, there has been great progress, but the author thinks that there are still many defects need to be perfected. This paper aims to perfect it from three aspects. First of all, the author mainly discusses the foundation of the emergence and existence of the state and the practice of the ancient state expropriation, and draws the conclusion that the inherent expropriation right of the state does not require the grant of the constitution. Through the comparative analysis of the constitution of capitalist countries, this paper proves that the expropriation clause in the constitution should be the one that limits the right of national expropriation, and thus puts forward that the power of expropriation should be changed from conferring the power of expropriation in the constitution to restricting the power of state expropriation. Secondly, the paper demonstrates that there is no need to distinguish whether public interest is the purpose of expropriation. First, collective land ownership is not a private right in the sense of private law, and should not enjoy the protection of private rights in the sense of private law. Second, distinguishing between public interest and non-public interest will lead to unjust result in distribution. Third, distinguishing "public interest" from "non-public interest" will reduce the overall efficiency and affect the process of urbanization modernization. Fourth, there are contradictions between the principle of public interest and the needs of the system. Fifth, the "public interest" is in a nominal state in practice, which can not prevent the abuse of expropriation right. It also demonstrates the need to increase the principle of due process to limit the right to expropriation. Therefore, the cancellation of expropriation should be based on the public interest and the principle of due process should be added to restrict the right of expropriation. Thirdly, it demonstrates that our country should adopt the principle of fair compensation from two aspects. On the one hand, it discusses the reasons of adopting the principle of fair compensation, on the other hand, it discusses the reasons of not adopting other principles of compensation. Therefore, the principle of fair compensation should be adopted in the expropriation of property in our country. Finally, it is concluded that Article 10 of the property expropriation clause in the Constitution of our country should be amended to mean that the state must give fair compensation for the expropriation or expropriation of land through due process. Article 13 shall be amended to mean that the state must provide fair compensation for the expropriation or expropriation of citizens' private property through due process.
【学位授予单位】：湖北大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D921

【参考文献】