【作者】 柳志伟；

【导师】 李步云；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 经济法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 当下中国的城市化引发了大规模的征地，而目前的补偿机制导致大量失地农民的生产生活缺乏足够的保障。如何改进当下的征收补偿制度，这已经成为理论界和实务界共同关注的一个重大战略问题。因此，有必要从理论源流和技术层面对该问题进行廓清，并对相关的制度安排予以改进。从历史来看，设立征收制度的目的是为了制约政府权力，使私有财产免受不当干扰。但是在现代社会，因为公共利益概念的不确定，征收制度已经缺乏了实质性的约束前提，不足以限制行政权对私有财产的侵犯。而且，在当下中国，行政权一枝独大，也缺乏对公共利益的司法审查，公共利益往往会成为相关机构获取不当利益的依据。在这样的背景下，补偿的重要性就更加突出。为什么要对被征收的财产予以补偿?传统学者往往是从抽象的公平正义等角度来解释公正补偿的正当性，这样的解释解决了财政征收的正当性问题，但是却无法回答一些技术上的难题。在现代社会，补偿制度的正当性被赋予了新的涵义：它可以保证分配正义、优化资源配置、制约政府权力和防止多数人的专制。从国外的立法例来看，所谓公正补偿往往是指根据市场价值对被征收的财产予以补偿。但是在中国，由于国家实行土地用途管制，而且缺乏一个公开交易的土地市场，因此就形成了有中国特色的补偿标准：即对土地的补偿不是依赖于土地的市场价值、甚至不是依赖于现有的农地价值，而是依赖于当地农民的生活水平和政府的财政能力。目前的这种补偿标准已经严重地影响了原来土地所有者的权利，有必要对此作出改进。对被征收的农地予以多种形式的补偿是当下中国的一个较为奇特的现象。之所以会形成多种形式的补偿，乃是受到以下几个因素的影响：财政与预算约束的因素、过低的货币补偿标准和行政主导的补偿制度。多种形式的补偿固然在某种程度上能够缓和失地农民生活无所依靠的生活困境，而且能够减轻政府的财政负担，但是并没有从根本上解决财产权保护的难题。相反，以“土地换保障”等补偿机制往往会因为其自身不可克服的缺陷，会进一步加剧行政权对私有财产的干涉。由于土地集体所有制的特殊性，导致了在征收补偿的时候往往会出现补偿对象难以确定的现象。中国农村中之所以会出现“农嫁女”等土地权利难以确认的现象，其中最为根本的原因是来源于明确的权利诉求与集体所有制中模糊的个人与个人、个人与集体之间权利界限的冲突。因此，确认征收补偿的对象，实际上就是要在集体所有的土地制度中明确个人和集体的权利界分，而这种权利界分的完成，则是需要对集体所有的农地制度作根本的变革。当下中国农地征收补偿制度困境的形成，归根结底，是由高度行政化的补偿机制和模糊的农地财产权制度结构所造成。行政化的补偿机制是指补偿标准和补偿形式都是由行政机构单方面作出，事实上几乎不受制约的行政权限制了失地农民获得公正补偿的制度空间。因此，解决农地征收中的补偿困境，主要不应依赖于行政机构本身提高补偿标准等措施的施行，而是有赖于对土地权利的重新界定，以及厘清公权力机构与农地所有人之间的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 There is increasingly emerging the legal significance of the compensation system in the eminent domain largely due to the transformation of the takings’ system. From the historical perspective, the eminent domain was established aimed to control governmental power whereby preventing private-owned property from undue intervention. In the modern society, however, the eminent domain has gradually turned into a vehicle by which to infringe private-owned property by governments. As a result, the resort to the public interest has been unable to curb the expansion of governmental power. Further, the public interest has been something based on which the relevant authorities gains unjust enrichment due to lack of an examination criteria towards public interests. The compensation appears more significant in the context of such background.Why does it need to compensate the expropriated property? The traditional scholar generally attempted to justify the just compensation in light of abstract justice of quality, which is although sounds rational but not quite persuasive as a result of the broad concepts. The functions of being capable of optimizing resource distribution, controlling government’s abuse of power, and preventing the majority autarchy have been new implications of the compensation system in the modern society.In light of the statutes outside China, the so-called just compensation generally refers to the compensation made by reference to market value of the expropriated property. As the land in China is owned by collective and there lacks a open market, there developed a compensation system with Chinese features, namely, the compensation is made not based on the market value of the land nor the current value of the farm land, instead on the budget capability of the governments and the living level of the local farmers. As the compensation standards currently have severely prejudice the rights of the original owners of the land, it is necessary to rectify and improve the compensation standards.It is a unique phenomenon nowadays in China that the compensation for the confiscated farmland is made in various manners. The reasons of which are caused by the following factors: constraint of budget and finance, standard of low compensation in money and government-oriental compensation system. Various manners of compensation is indeed to some degree capable of relieving the living difficulties of the farmer with no lands to be resorted on for a living, and further relieving the finance burden of the governments. Nevertheless, the compensation system as such does not fundamentally address the puzzle of protection for property right, by contrast, the compensation mechanism such as "land in exchange for security" would enhance the administrative interference into private-owned property further due to the inherent defects which can not be overcome itself.The particularity of the land collective-ownership system results in a phenomenon where the compensated object can not be determined. Among the various reason of the phenomenon where the right to the land can not be determined in the rural place in China, the most fundamental one lies in the conflict between the express claim and the blur individual under the collective-ownership system as well as the conflict between the boundary of rights of individual and collective. Consequently, determination of the compensated object is actually to draw a express boundary line between individual and collective in the land collective-ownership system. The completion of drawing the boundary line accordingly needs the fundamental reformation of the collective-owned farmland system.The dilemma of the compensation system for eminent domain conclusively is an infringement of the rights of the original owners of property by the administrative compensation mechanism of highly bureaucracy. The key to addressing the issue depends on the re-definition of the right of the land and clearance of the relationship between power structure and private-owned property rather than on the implementation of measures such as raising the compensation standards by the governmental bodies themselves.更多还原