【作者】 赵宁；

【导师】 郭洁；

【作者基本信息】 辽宁大学 ， 经济法， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 受计划经济思维和传统科层制行政体系影响，公权力的运行存在着一定的正当性危机，这种危机在我国当前传统的土地利用规划权力制度中尤为突出，具体表现为：土地利用规划权力的行使背离公共利益、社会公众对土地利用规划权力缺乏认同、甚至存在土地利用规划权力寻租的现象。在政府万能和行政权威主义的影响下，土地利用规划权力呈现出强烈地抑制土地市场机能的倾向。在实践层面，土地利用规划权力的行使带有明显的行政色彩，容易产生政府被特殊利益集团所俘获、规划决策对现实缺乏回应性以及管制成本过高等政府失灵的现象。究其根源，无不与土地利用规划集权、规划权力单向行使、规划权力缺乏应有的程序控制等因素相关。在现代市场经济及其所需要的法治环境下，越来越多的事实已经表明，传统的依靠行政命令运行土地利用规划权力的模式，已经无法适应转型期土地利用及其规划治理的要求，我国的土地利用规划权力制度亟待改进。由于土地利用规划权力问题涉及多个学科领域，本文综合运用政治学、制度经济学、土地管理学、社会学等学科的分析工具，研究土地规划权力正当性的法理依据及其制度构造。通过对现有相关研究文献的梳理发现，法学界对土地利用规划权力正当性的研究基本处于空白状态，多数研究文献从土地管理学和行政法的视角对土地利用规划权存在的问题加以分析并提出相应的对策，但现有研究成果对土地利用规划权力制度正当性缺乏充分论证，未明确土地利用规划权行使的正当性标准。与域外现代法治国家的土地利用规划权研究从传统行政权模式向现代激励性管制模式转变的趋势相比，我国法学界对土地利用规划权的研究框架仍然没有摆脱传统行政法范式的羁绊。实践证明，现代行政法学关于土地利用规划权力正当性理论能够为土地利用规划权力的合法性和良性运行提供有效的理论支撑，相关理论应作为我国构建土地利用规划制度的理论指引，其共同点在于：土地利用规划权力的正当性只有通过法律明确共同体的根本价值（公共利益），以及立基于个体“赞同”的权力关系框架才能得以实现，关于土地利用规划的不确定性理论、权力多中心理论、规划权利制约规划权力理论以及规划协商理论，能够为规划权力的正当性做出理性的诠释。在现代市场经济与法治社会中，政府土地利用规划权力制度的改革过程是一个行政权力不断消退，社会与市场不断彰显的过程，行政机关应当在土地利用发生市场失灵的时候出现，将市场和社会能解决的问题交由自身消解。因为，市场导向的土地利用规划管制模式，能够充分发挥土地市场主体和社会主体的优势，弥补土地规划机构干预的不足。考察现代法治国家的土地利用规划法律制度发现，发达国家均采取了市场为导向的土地利用规划权力制度模式，普遍调整了规划权力的边界、赋予地方政府规划自治权、创新激励性规划的管制机制,并建立了土地利用规划监督制度。鉴于此，本文试图以正当性为视角对我国土地利用规划权力制度进行重构，其是必须证成规划权力正当性的判断标准。基于对主流国家制度样本的分析，本文提出，规划权力正当性的制度性判断标准包括以下几方面：第一，在政府规划权限标准方面，政府应当对土地利用规划以有限干预为界，在赋予地方政府一定的土地利用规划自治权的同时，要充分发挥市场在土地资源配置中的基础作用；第二，在政府介入规划手段标准方面，应当运用激励性管制机制。通过公权力与私权利合作的土地利用规划激励性管制机制，提高土地利用规划的管制效率、降低管制成本；第三，在规划主体地位标准方面，土地利用规划权力行使时需要规划权力主体与相对方平等协商，借助规划合同，实现规划目的。第四，在规划权力制约的标准方面，应当加强对规划权力的程序控制。作为公权力的规划权力存在异化和被滥用的危险。为了应对我国土地利用规划权力的正当性危机，本文提出了保障我国土地利用规划权力正当性的制度设计。首先，我国规划立法的理念应当从国家本位向社会本位转变；行政权力主导向多元利益均衡转变，将市场主体的利益诉求纳入到规划管制的制度结构。其次，规划权力运行应遵循合理比例性原则、确定性与灵活性平衡原则、信赖保护原则与利益衡平原则。其次，依据正当性判断标准，土地利用规划权力的制度设计应包括：一是坚持政府有限干预模式，完善主体功能区规划制度、建立动态规划管理模式、健全多元化土地规划权主体制度、确立土地利用规划地方分权规则；二是通过激励性管制原理，完善土地开发权指标交易制度、赋予利害关系人因规划管制的利益补偿权；三是按照规划的协商民主模式，完善开发管制的规划协商制度和公私合作规划制度；四是依据权力监督机制，立法应加强规划行政监督、公众实质性参与、立法机关监督机制与司法审查制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Due to long-term influence of planned-economy and bureaucracy system, poweroperation rule is faced up with legitimacy crisis in our country, which is most prominentin traditional land-use planning power system. For example, land-use planning powerdeviates from public interest, lacks public “identity” and serious rent-seeking exists.Under the influence of omnipotent government concept and administrativeauthoritarianism, land-use planning power has a strong tendency to restrain land-usemarket function. In practice, land-use planning organs exercise power with strongadministrative regulation color, which tend to lead to government failure, such as captureby special interests, land-use planning power lack of response and high cost of regulation.The root cause lies in centralized power, unidirectional planning process, lack oflegislative empowerment and judicial control, and so on. It proves that traditionaladministrative command and control planning power mode cannot meet the need of landuse and planning governance in new transformation period, calling for improvement ofland-use power system in our country.As land use planning power problems relate to multiple disciplines, in this paper,the legal theory basis of land planning power legitimacy and its system structure areresearched utilizing analysis tools such as the politics, Institutional economics,management science, sociology. Through carding existing related research literature,legal research on the legitimacy of the land use planning power is almost in a blank state.Most of the research literature is from the perspective of land management science andadministrative law, which analyzes problems and puts forward correspondingcountermeasures in land use planning power. However, legitimacy of land use planningpower system is not justified sufficiently, and the criterion is not clarified. In thecountries ruled by law, the research on land use planning power has changed fromtraditional administrative regulation mode to incentive regulation mode. In contrast toforeign countries, research framework on land use planning power has not got rid of thefetter of the traditional administrative law paradigm in our country. It proves that modernadministrative law on land use planning power legitimacy theory in foreign countries can provide valid theory support for the legitimacy of land use planning power and its benignoperation. Therefore, these theories can be used as a guide in our country. It is generallybelieved that it is only through system framework of legal clarified public interest and theindividual "agreement" can the legitimacy of land use planning power be realized.Land-use planning uncertainty theory, multi-center theory, theory of right restrictingpower and planning consultation theory can explain the legitimacy of land use planningpower rationally.In context of modern market economy and society rule by law, land-use planningpower system reform is a process in which administrative power is waning while socialand market power are increasing. Only when market failure appears in land-use cangovernment intervene. The government should let the market and society solve their ownproblems. Market-orientation land use planning control mode takes the advantage of theland market and social body to make up for the inadequacy of land planning agency’sintervention Studying modern countries ruled by law,it is found that these countries alltake the market as the guidance of land use planning power system model:genernallyadjusting the planning power boundary, rationally allocating of the central and localplanning authority,using incentive planning control mode and establishing land-useplanning supervision system.Thus, this article intends to reform land-use planning power system in perspective oflegitimacy. We should make clear the criterion of planning power legitimacy, as it is thepremise of the land use planning power system reconstruction. This paper puts forwardthe legitimacy criterion in land use planning power: From limit of authority criterions,the government should take limited intervention in land use planning, entitling the localgovernment some autonomy and making full use of market system; From involvementmeans criterions, incentive regulation mechanism should play an important role throughpublic and private partnership, which helps to improve regulation efficiency and reduceregulation cost; From the legal position criterions, both parties should negotiate equallyin land-use planning process, where they can realize the planning goal by contract. Fromplanning power control criterions, the entity control and process control should bereinforced. As public power, land-use planning power is more likely to be alienated and abused.According to this standard, this paper puts forward system design to guarantee legitimacyof the land use planning power in our country. First of all, the planning shall follow theprinciple of proportionality, principle of balance certainty with flexibility, relianceinterest principle, balance of interest principle. Second, according to standards oflegitimacy of land use planning power, the legal system includes limited governmentintervention mode, the incentive regulation mechanism, equal consultation mode andpower supervision mode. First,the government should insist limited governmentintervention mode by improving the main body function area planning system,establishing the dynamic planning regulation mode and polycentric land-use planningbody system, setting up the rule of decentralization in land use planning. Second,incentive regulation mode includes the land development rights index trading system andthe interested parties’ compensation rights due to land-use planning regulation. Third,planning consultation in development control system and public and private cooperationsystem should be improved according to planning consultation mode. Last, on the basisof power supervision and restraint mechanism, planning administrative and legislativesupervision and substantial public participation and judicial review system in planningsystem should be reinforced.更多还原