业主维权的法律动员与法律机会结构研究

发布时间：2018-04-29 02:41

本文选题：业主维权 + 法律动员　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：本文从法社会学的视角出发对三个小区的业主维权进行了研究。业主维权属于典型意义上的“依法维权”，这已经在学术界达成了共识，随着法律正在进入一个社会学的时代，从法社会学的视角切入业主维权研究以打破社会学与法学之间相互隔膜的知识传统显得愈加重要。然而，目前业主维权研究虽然强调法律是业主维权贯彻始终的枢纽，但多只是把法律作为一种背景性材料或结论性用语加以使用，，并没有深入分析法律在业主维权中扮演的角色。缺乏法社会学的视角，导致业主维权研究中策略主义研究的泛滥、诉讼维权研究的缺席和对业主维权意义的过度解读，从而使法律在业主维权中的面目极其模糊和笼统。要真正探究法律在业主维权中扮演了什么角色就必须在业主维权研究中引入法社会学的视角并以其为基础建构业主维权的理论分析框架。本文借鉴法律与社会运动研究中的法律动员理论与法律机会结构理论作为本文的解释框架。法律动员是将不满、诉求和目标用法律话语转化为权利主张并在法律场域中实践的过程，它的成败很大程度上取决于变动不居的抗争环境。在中国的法律情境下，业主维权的法律机会结构主要包括五个维度：法律存量、法律行动的成本、同盟与反维权势力、法院的可接受度与法律意识。从这两个法律分析框架出发，本文分别对三个小区的业主维权行动进行了研究和比较。本文发现，在业主维权中法律既可以作为沟通实践，形塑着业主之间的交往、期待、理解和互动模式以及对社会和政治生活可能性的想象，法律话语、法律意识、法律象征意涵、法律符号和法律互动模式是其主要表现形式；法律又是一种治理技术，政府和法院能够运用法律来调节、应对甚至打压业主维权行动，并且能取得事半功倍的效果；法律还可以是业主维权的策略资源，具体表现在它可以成为业主维权的话语资源、动员资源、认知资源和合法性资源以及能进一步拓展其他资源。本文对业主法律动员过程进行了分析。业主法律动员过程包括确定抗争议题，主要通过命名、归因和形成法律诉求来实现；学法、普法和对诉讼策略与诉讼技术的学习；采取正式的法律行动——诉讼以及对业主法律动员的“遗产”进行分析和评估。在这三个小区中，业主法律动员都是在业主自力救济与行政救济失败后的一种“反应性的法律动员”，但是也出现了从“反应性法律动员”向“进取性法律动员”转化的趋势，尽管这种趋势并不明显。在对业主法律动员策略与非法律策略关系的研究中，本文发现二者之间的关系是单向度的关系，前者对后者没有明显的影响，后者对前者则影响巨大，这一点区别于法律与社会运动研究传统认为的两者之间存在辩证关系。法律意识研究是法律动员研究的核心议题之一。本文发现业主在法律动员过程中法律意识并非静止不变的，而是随着法律动员的推进不断发生变化：在维权初期，业主多秉持“敬畏法律”的法律意识；随着正式法律行动——诉讼的展开，业主的法律意识往往转变成“利用法律”的法律意识；诉讼结束后，诉讼结果使业主的法律意识产生了分化，败诉往往使业主的法律意识转变成“悬浮型法律意识”；胜诉则会进一步强化“利用法律”的法律意识。本文发现，近几年业主维权的法律机会结构在纵向上开放程度有了明显提升：法律存量增多，业主和业委会的法律地位得到明确；由于业主采取种种诉讼策略或者不聘请代理律师以规避诉讼成本与举证能力的提升，在一定程度上降低了法律行动的成本；业主维权的同盟开始增多，反维权势力稍有所减弱；法院对业主诉讼的可接受度和业主的法律意识都有了很大提升。从横向看，通过对发生在不同地域的三个业主维权案例的比较研究，本文发现业主维权的法律机会结构存在着明显的地域差异，主要表现在同盟与反维权势力和法院的可接受度这两个维度上，因此，对业主维权法律机会结构的考察应注意区分不同城市的法律情境。本文进一步对业主维权研究的主流“意识形态”，即将业主维权视为建构公民社会路径的论断进行了澄清。本文发现M小区和X小区业主维权主要将法律视为维权的工具而非真正信仰法律，他们行动的伦理基础不是基于法治精神和权利意识的公民自主性实践伦理，而是基于传统儒家文化伦理和朴素的日常生活伦理。他们锲而不舍地上诉并非基于对法治信念的孜孜追求，而是基于传统意识中“上级比下级好”的“伸冤”逻辑，从这个视角来看，业主的法律救济逻辑与传统的上访等其他救济逻辑没什么两样，仍然不过是依仗高阶规则之权威要求低阶规则兑现国家既已赋予的权利而已。因此，这两个小区业主维权并没有生产出多少公民意识和公民勇气，更不是公民的主体性建构，他们的维权行动仍然囿于传统的伦理意识与臣民义务感的框架内。因此，对业主维权意义的解读应该具体考察其维权实践过程中的内在逻辑和实践伦理属性，而不能简单地进行浪漫化处理。
[Abstract]:From the perspective of Sociology of law, this paper studies the owners' rights of the owners of the three communities. The owner's right to rights belongs to the "right to protect the rights according to law". This has already reached a consensus in the academic circle. With the law being entered into a sociological era, the study of the owners' rights to protect the rights of the owners from the perspective of the sociology of law in order to break the sociology and law. However, at present, although the owner maintenance research emphasizes that the law is the hub of the owner's maintenance, the law is mostly used as a kind of background material or concluding term, and does not deeply analyze the role of law in the owner's rights. From the angle of view, it leads to the overflowing of strategic research in the research of owners' rights protection, the absence of the study of litigation rights and the overreading of the meaning of owners' rights, which makes the face of the law in the owner's rights very vague and general. From the perspective of learning and building a theoretical analysis framework for owners' rights protection.
This paper uses the theory of legal mobilization and the theory of legal opportunity structure in the study of law and social movement as the framework of this article. Legal mobilization is the process of transforming discontent, appeals and goals into claims and practice in the legal field. The success or failure of the legal mobilization depends largely on the discontented environment. In the context of China's law, the legal opportunity structure of the owners' rights protection mainly includes five dimensions: the stock of law, the cost of legal action, the alliance and anti rights forces, the acceptability of the court and the legal consciousness. From these two legal analytical frameworks, this paper studies and compares the owners' rights actions of the three small areas respectively.
It is found that the law can not only be used as a communication practice, but also forms a form of communication, expectation, understanding and interaction, as well as the imagination of the possibility of social and political life, legal discourse, legal consciousness, legal symbolic meaning, legal symbols and legal interaction patterns, and the law is a kind of governance. The government and the court can use the law to adjust, deal with or even suppress the owners' rights action, and can achieve twice the result of half the effort. The law can also be a strategic resource for the owners to maintain rights. It is manifested in the resources, the mobilization of resources, the cognitive resources and legal resources, and the further extension of the owner's rights to maintain the rights of the owners. Other resources.
The process of owners' legal mobilization is analyzed in this paper. The process of owners' legal mobilization includes the determination of the issue of resistance, mainly through naming, attribution and formation of legal demands; learning law, universal law and learning of litigation and litigation technology; taking formal legal action, litigation and "heritage" to owners' legal mobilization. In the three communities, the owners' legal mobilization is a "reactive legal mobilization" after the owners' self relief and administrative relief failed, but the trend from "reactive legal mobilization" to "enterprising legal mobilization" has also emerged. This trend is not obvious. In the study of the relationship between strategy and non legal strategy, this paper finds that the relationship between the two is one way relationship, the former has no obvious influence on the latter, and the latter has a great influence on the former, which is different from the argument relationship between the traditional law and the social movement research.
The study of legal consciousness is one of the core issues in the study of legal mobilization. It is found that the legal consciousness of the owners in the process of legal mobilization is not static, but is constantly changing with the promotion of legal mobilization: in the early stages of the rights, the owners hold the legal consciousness of "awe law", and the formal legal action - the litigation The legal consciousness of the owner is often transformed into the legal consciousness of "using the law". After the end of the lawsuit, the result of the lawsuit causes the owner's legal consciousness to differentiate, and the loss of the lawsuit often turns the owner's legal consciousness into a "suspension type legal consciousness", and the winner will further strengthen the legal consciousness of "using the law".
This paper finds that in recent years, the legal opportunity structure of owners' rights protection has been obviously improved in the vertical degree: the increase of the legal stock and the clear legal status of the owners and the industry committee are clear, and to a certain extent, the owners have taken various litigation strategies or did not hire agents to improve the cost of litigation and the ability to raise evidence. The cost of legal action is lower; the alliance of owners' rights to rights has begun to increase, and the anti rights forces have been slightly weakened; the court has greatly improved the acceptability of the owners' litigation and the legal consciousness of the owners. Through the comparative study of the three owners' rights cases in different regions, this paper finds the law of the owners' rights protection. There are obvious regional differences in the opportunity structure, which are mainly manifested in the two dimensions of the alliance and anti - rights forces and the acceptability of the court. Therefore, the investigation of the legal opportunity structure of the owner's rights protection should pay attention to the distinction between the legal situation of different cities.
This article further clarifies the mainstream "ideology" of the owner's rights protection research, and clarifies the assertion that the owner's rights are regarded as the construction of the civil society path. This article finds that the rights of the owners of the M community and the X community mainly regard the law as a tool for safeguarding the rights rather than the real belief in the law, and the ethical basis of their action is not based on the spirit of the rule of law and the rights. It is based on the traditional Confucian cultural ethics and the simple daily life ethics, which are not based on the diligent pursuit of the belief in the rule of law, but based on the "superior" logic of "superior than the lower level" in the traditional consciousness. From this perspective, the owner's legal relief logic and the legal relief logic are based on this perspective. The other relief logic, such as the traditional petitions, is not two, but it is still the right of the lower rules to meet the rights that the state has endowed with the authority of the higher order rules. Therefore, the rights of the two owners do not produce how much civic consciousness and civic courage, but not the citizen's subjective construction, and their rights to maintain their rights are still In the framework of the traditional ethical consciousness and the sense of the subject's obligation, the interpretation of the meaning of the owner's rights should be specific to the internal logic and the practical ethical attributes in the process of the practice of rights, but it can not be simply romantically treated.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D90-052

【参考文献】