《民法典》空间所有权制度研究  

Research on the System of Space Ownership in Civil Code

作　　者：秦彪 张民安[1] Qin Biao;Zhang Min’an

机构地区：[1]中山大学法学院,广东广州510275

出　　处：《河南社会科学》2021年第3期71-78,共8页Henan Social Sciences

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“中国侵权责任法改革研究”(16JJD820015);2021年贵州省理论创新课题“贵州省城市地下空间开发利用法律制度保障路径研究”(GZLCLH-2021-367)。

摘　　要：传统土地所有权制度与现代空间法不相适应,否定空间所有权会导致空间用益物权和空间相邻关系缺乏本体权利,在空间所有权否定理论下建构的建筑物区分专有权和空间地上权有偏离物权“确定性原则”的倾向,法技术处理方法需要谨慎使用,由此,承认空间所有权及其独立性是解决现有空间所有权理论问题的最佳路径。空间所有权的客体范围至少包括垂直接触于土地表面的空间和脱离于土地表面而形成的独立空间。我国《民法典》未规定空间所有权,此种制度安排在一定程度上会打乱我国《民法典》的形式逻辑体系,违反物权的相关规则,也不能有效解决当前我国空间权的现实问题。因此,在其中规定独立的空间所有权制度是解决我国空间权实践问题的最佳路径。建构空间所有权需要注意其客体范围、限制以及登记与公示等问题。The traditional system of land ownership is not compatible with the modern space law.The denial of space ownership will result in the lack of ontological rights of space usufructuary rights and space adjacent relations.To separate the exclusive rights and superficies of space of buildings constructed under such a theory are likely to deviate from the principle of certainty of real rights.Legal and technical processing methods need to be used cautiously.Therefore,the best solution is to recognize space ownership and its independence.The object scope of space ownership includes at least the space perpendicular to the land surface and the independent space formed from the land surface.In China,the Civil Code does not define space ownership.Such institutional arrangements will disrupt the formal logic system of the Civil Code to a certain extent,violate the relevant rules of property rights,and cannot effectively solve the current problems.Therefore,stipulating an independent space ownership system is the best way to solve the practical problems of space rights in China.The construction of space ownership needs to pay attention to its object scope,restrictions,registration and publicity issues.

关 键 词：空间所有权 否定理论批判 规范释评 制度建构 

分 类 号：D9[政治法律—法学]