【作者】 陈志超；

【导师】 王跃龙；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 民商法， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 本文从保护农民个体在农村集体土地上的民事权利的角度,对我国现行农村集体土地制度的既存立法、形成历史、农民土地权利的行使实践进行了系统的研究,并进而提出应当以农村法人土地制度改造现行集体土地所有制度。本文通过历史考察,认为我国农村集体土地制度并不是经济自然演进的结果,而是政治经济运动的产物。“集体”的概念并不符合传统民法理论。本文通过对我国农村集体土地制度的法律规定、政策及其演变的考察,认为认为我国立法发展脉络是朝着保护农民土地权利方向发展的。本文通过分析我国民法学界关于农村集体土地制度基本概念的表述,认为现有的理论并没有能够解释清楚农村集体土地所有权的基本问题,尤其是集体所有权的主体问题、集体成员权利问题等,因此,本文指出,针对实践中存在的侵犯农民土地权利问题,用民法理改造现有的农村集体土地制度实为必要。本文从有利于保护农民个体民事权利的角度出发,通过对当前我国农村集体土地制度立法进行详细梳理,分析讨论了当前我国立法在关于农村集体土地所有权和农民土地权利行使、保护规定上存在的问题。本文通过考察立法,认为我国立法并没有明确“集体”的法律内涵,现行制度下抽象“集体”作为权利主体的缺位,给侵害农民个体土地权利带来了可能。本文通过具体分析农村集体土地所有权权能缺失的立法局限,认为这种权能缺失违反了民法平等精神,带来的后果必然是现有集体土地所有权主体不可能从可产生巨大经济效益的土地商业性利用中获得应得利益,难以避免基层政府由于利益的驱使和现存集体土地所有权行使主体相互勾结,合谋侵犯农民权益。解决此问题的着眼点应该在民法保护私法的框架内,即通过改造集体土地所有权及其行使主体实现保护农民土地权益的目的。本文具体分析了我国民法学者对农村集体土地所有权主体性质的不同学理解释。学者都承认在我国存在着集体所有权,争议主要在于应如何对其进行改造。在本文的最后一部分,本文提出应以法人土地所有权制度改造现行农村集体土地制度。本文通过对农村集体土地国有化和私有化的批驳,否定了这两种革命性的改革方案,肯定并支持在维护集体土地所有制度的前提下进行改造。本文认为,采用法人制改造现有的集体土地所有制度具有先进性、合理性,符合民法的传统理念。现在使用的农民集体概念用语具有落后性,也不符合民法理论。本文认为,构建农村法人应以我国民法之社团法人为基础,仿照公司法人治理结构进行。本文努力尝试对农村法人土地所有权制度进行细致深入的研究,提出以法人制改造现存集体土地所有制度。以法人替代村民委员会作为农村集体土地所有权的行使主体。在村民委员会之外设立独立的法人,是必要的,而且具有可行性。本文主张,农村集体土地所有权制度的设计、改造必须以保护农民权利为前提。更多还原

【Abstract】 From the angle of safeguarding individual farmer’s civil rights on rural collective land, the thesis renders a systemic research on such problems as the formation of collective land system, the existing legislation, exertion of farmer’s rights on land and further proposes that rural legal person land system should be established.Based on research on history, the thesis demonstrates that“collective land”system in our country is not the result of natural economic evolvement. The concept of“collective”does not accord with traditional theories of civil law. Through research on the stipulation of rural collective land system in our country and its evolvement, the thesis demonstrates that the development orientation of legislation in our country is towards safeguarding of farmer’s rights on land. Through analyzing statements for the basic concept of rural collective land system in the academic field of civil law, the thesis holds the view that the existing theories do not have a clear understanding of the basic issues of rural collective land ownership, especially subjects of collective ownership and rights of members of collectives and etc. . therefore the thesis demonstrates that regarding issues of encroachment on farmer’s rights on land, it is truly necessary to reform the current rural collective land system with theories of civil law.From the angle of assisting safeguarding of individual farmer’s civil rights, through a complete review of the current of rural collective land system the thesis discusses the existing problems in the stipulations in our country in the aspects of rural collective land ownership, exertion of farmer’s rights on land and protective regulations. Through research on stipulations the thesis holds the views that the stipulations in our country do not provide a definite legal connotation for“collective”. In the current system abstract“collective”being the subject of rights increases the possibilities of encroachment on farmers’rights on land. By analyzing the loss of contents of rural collective land ownership, the thesis demonstrates that the loss goes against the equality spirit of civil law, and the result will be the current subjects of collective land ownership can not obtain interests they deserve from the commercial utilization which can produce great financial benefits and the phenomenon occurs that driven by interests and benefits the basic-level governments collude with the current subjects collective ownership to encroach on farmers’legal rights.The key resolution is to achieve the aim of safeguarding farmers’right through reforming collective land ownership and its subjects within the frame of civil law protective rights. After analyzing the various academic explanations by scholars in the field of civil law science for the nature of subject of rural collective land ownership, the thesis demonstrates that scholars all agree that there exists collective ownership in our country. The differences among scholars are on what position collective ownership should be regulated.In the end part of thesis, the thesis demonstrates that rural collective land system should be replaced by rural legal person’s land ownership. Through remark on rural collective land nationalization and privatization, the thesis denies the two revolutionary reform schemes. The thesis holds the view that utilizing the concept of rural legal person is advanced and reasonable which conforms to civil law science, while the existing concept of“farmer collective”is backward which does not accord with civil law standard. The thesis demonstrates that formulating rural legal person should take the juridical association in civil law in our country as its basis imitating the managing structure of corporation legal person. The thesis tries to make an extensive and future design on rural communal legal person’s land ownership, puts forward in a creative way the replacement of village committee by legal person as the performing subject of rural collective land ownership. It is necessary and reasonable to construct legal person independent from village committee on the basis of farmer groups. The thesis puts forward that rural legal person’s land system should be established on the premise of safeguarding farmers’rights to achieve the aim of safeguarding individual farmer’s rights on land.更多还原