宅基地“使用权”实践探索的法理检视与实现路径  

Legal Inspection and Implementation Path of Right of Use in"the Separation of Three Rights"of Homestead

作　　者：申建平[1] SHEN Jianping(Law school,Heilongjiang University,Harbin Heilongjiang 150080,China)

机构地区：[1]黑龙江大学法学院,黑龙江哈尔滨150080

出　　处：《法学论坛》2023年第6期128-139,共12页Legal Forum

基　　金：国家社科基金项目《“三权分置”下农地经营权入典问题研究》(18BFX155)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：“三权分置”已成为我国宅基地改革的既定方向,准确理解宅基地“三权分置”政策意蕴,真正落实宅基地三权分置具体形式,是当前学界亟待解决的问题。学界关于三权分置政策中宅基地“使用权”名称表达有不同观点,对“使用权”的界定应当有利于现有的权利概念和宅基地上权利体系的清晰,故政策中的“使用权”不宜采用地上权、宅基地经营权、建设用地使用权或宅基地使用权予以表达。实践探索离不开理论的基础和支撑。从法学视角对试点地区宅基地改革制度设计方案实践运行情况进行检视,转让和权利转化方式与“三权分置”政策相悖。宅基地“三权分置”不能违反物权法定原则及自罗马法以降的用益物之上不得再为用益的原则,应遵从法律体系的内在逻辑。债权性利用无需进行制度改造,能够最大限度地平衡宅基地动态的流转性与静态的身份性之间的平衡,与立法精神、现行法律体系相契合。试点改革阶段不宜采用制度创新成本高的物权流转方式。With"the separation of three rights'of homestead"established as the direction of China's homestead reform,to accu-rately understand the meaning and truly implement such policy has gradually become a focus among academia.While there are different views on how"right of use in'the separation of three rights'of homestead"should be defined,the interpretation of such term should be conducive to the clarity of the existing system of rights on the homestead.Therefore,"the right of use"in such policy should not be simply understood as surface right,homestead management rights,construction land use rights,or home-stead use rights.Embarking from the theory,this paper examines the practice and operation of the systematic design of China's homestead reform in pilot areas and illustrates how the methods of transfer and transformation of rights are contrary to the policy of"the separation of three rights".Creditor's right to use calls for no systematic reform as it already complies with the legislative spirit and current legal system of China.And therefore,a property right transfer method with high cost of systematic innovation should not be adopted in the pilot reform stage.

关 键 词：宅基地 三权分置 宅基地“使用权” 

分 类 号：D923.2[政治法律—民商法学]