宅基地使用权制度中所有权权能虚化问题之辨析——以山东省莱阳市两村为例  

On the Empty of Ownership in the System of the Right to Use Homestead——Taking 2 Villages in Laiyang City, Shandong Province as an Example

作　　者：张慧 ZHANG Hui

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院

出　　处：《山东农业大学学报（社会科学版）》2019年第4期66-71,I0003,共7页Journal of Shandong Agricultural University(Social Science Edition)

摘　　要：学者们将宅基地闲置、非法转让等问题归因于农村集体的所有权权能虚化,认为农村集体作为所有权人,应强化所有权权能,积极行使物上请求权等权利,以保护农村集体土地所有权的圆满状态。虽然从法解释学上,非法转让宅基地的行为确实侵犯了农村集体的所有权权能,但所有权人受制于亲疏关系和人情牵绊,实际上并无法真正行使权利,实现所有权的保护。此外,宅基地面临的困境,与其说是因为所有权权能的虚化,不如说是因为法律移植产生的水土不服。无论是制度建立的基础还是制度运行依赖的主体,都表明了宅基地使用权、农村集体所有权制度与传统大陆法系国家的相关制度存在很大差异。The scholars attribute the improper use of homestead to the empty of ownership. They believe that in order to exclude infringement and protect rural collective land in a satisfactory state,rural collectives,as owners,it should exercise the right of real claim for improper use of homestead. In the sense of legal norms,that interpretation may be reasonable. However,in practice,rural collectives are bound by relationships and emotions,and it can not play a role. Moreover,the dilemma faced by homestead is not so much due to the emptiness of ownership power,but rather due to the incompatibility caused by legal transplantation. Regardless of the foundation of system establishment or the main body of system operation,it shows that there are great differences between the concept of Chinese law and that of traditional civil law countries. Therefore,in the context of the right to use homestead,it is not of practical significance to emphasize the return of ownership.

关 键 词：所有权虚化 所有权保护 宅基地使用权 情感 关系 

分 类 号：D922.3[政治法律—法学] F321.1[经济管理—产业经济]