行政审批与矿业权转让合同的效力  

On the Relation Between Administrative Authorization and Effectiveness of Mineral Title Contracts

作　　者：蔡立东[1] 李晓倩[1] 

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院,吉林长春130012

出　　处：《政法论丛》2011年第5期33-38,共6页Journal of Political Science and Law

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地2007年重大项目<团体法秩序的法理逻辑>(2007JJD810158)的阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：关于行政审批与矿业权转让合同效力的关系,存在绑定与区分两种技术路线,由此关于未经行政审批之矿业权转让合同的效力状态,存有"合同无效说"、"合同未生效说"和"合同有效说"三种不同的立场。基于合同效力与合同履行相分离的既定选择,国家管制矿业权变动应当从否定矿业权转让合同的效力转向控制矿业权的实际变动,也即未经行政审批的矿业权转让合同亦为有效合同。在政策选择上,应当采用行政审批与矿业权转让合同效力区分的立法政策;在技术构成上,可以利用违约责任的承担与免除机制调整当事各方的利益关系。There are three different positions about the relationship between the administrative authorization and the effect of mineral title contracts： Valid contracts,Invalid contracts and Unexecutory contracts.Based on the separation technology of contracts＇ effectiveness and contracts＇ performance,the administrative authorization should be controlling the alteration of mineral rights,not controlling the effectiveness of mineral title contracts.That means the contracts are valid,even they did not get the administrative approval.On policy choice,we should distinguish the administrative authorization and the effectiveness of mineral title contract;On the technical composition,we can use the default liability mechanism to adjust the interests of the parties.

关 键 词：行政审批 矿业权转让 合同效力 违约责任 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学]