也论土地承包权的性质  

On the Nature of Land Contract Right

作　　者：张凇纶 ZHANG Songlun

机构地区：[1]广东外语外贸大学土地法制研究院

出　　处：《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2022年第10期96-108,共13页Jinan Journal(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“新时代中国特色土地管理法律制度完善研究”(18ZDA151)。

摘　　要：三权分置政策凸显了承包权性质问题的重要性。但无论是身份权说、成员权说还是剩余权说,既有理论都存在各种各样的弱点,难以成立。土地承包权的本质是作为财产权的物权,而且是非他物权的物权:其实为农民在私有层面的所有者权益。由于公有制与私有制的所有权本来就具有不同的制度目的,因此将承包权定位为私法上的所有权,不仅不会与传统物权法的原则相冲突,反而会在理论实现自洽,逻辑上保证顺畅,实践中留下空间。在计划经济向市场经济转型的背景下,土地承包权的制度目的发生了衰变,因此从发展的角度讲,承包权认定标准应当逐步放弃户籍,而以“团体协议+司法审查”作为基本操作规程。Although the policy of three rights separation does highlight the importance of the nature of the land contract right,yet the existing theories have various weaknesses and are difficult to establish,whether it is the theory of identity right,member right or residual right.The essence of land contract right is not only the real right as property right,but also the non-real right over the property of others:in fact,it is the ownership of farmers at the private level.Since the public ownership and private ownership have different institutional purposes,positioning the contract right as the ownership in private law will not conflict with the principles of traditional property law,but will achieve theoretical self-consistency,ensure logical smoothness and enjoy flexibility in practice.Against the background of the transformation from planned economy to market economy,the purpose of the system of land contracting right has been undermined.Therefore,from the development point of view,the standard of contracting rights should gradually abandon registered residence.Instead,“group agreement plus judicial review”should be adopted as the basic operating rules.

关 键 词：土地承包权 成员权、身份权与剩余权 所有者权益 制度目的 

分 类 号：D9[政治法律—法学]