农村土地调整的实践逻辑与法律回应

发布时间：2018-06-14 00:10

本文选题：表面共识 + 农地调整　；参考：《华中科技大学学报(社会科学版)》2017年06期

【摘要】：我国立法和相关政策从制度规范的角度否定了人口增减原因的农地调整,并将调整范围限定在狭义的法定情形之中。农地调整作为公权力涉入私法的一项衡平工具,在公平分配和保障农地基本利用效率上具有不同的规范路径。从历史实证的角度考察,农地调整制度的"废除"应解释为一项"表面共识",即"增人不增地、减人不减地"政策为完成其村庄治理目标的附属产物。在当前的社会实证考察中,农地调整仍然存在实践需求,其内含的制度意蕴无法借助法定调整模式实现,在三轮承包时采取适当调整承包期限、对新增人口予以经济补偿或其他"可替代性保障"的法技术手段仍然具有现实意义。而立足于规范实证,针对集体决议借助农地调整介入私法领域的行为,调整制度还承担着保持最小耕种单位以及特殊情形下整合土地规模等功能,且应当在未来中国《民法典》中予以补充规范。不同的实证考察视角,可厘清中国农地调整理论与现实之间的冲突,进而在现行制度框架下采纳"可替代性保障"和"对既有用益物权进行调整"的双向路径,更妥适地实现公平与效率的农地价值目标。
[Abstract]:The legislation and related policies of our country negate the adjustment of farmland because of the increase and decrease of population from the point of view of system norm, and limit the scope of adjustment to the legal situation in a narrow sense. As an equitable tool of public power involved in private law, farmland adjustment has different normative paths in the fair distribution and protection of the basic utilization efficiency of agricultural land. From the perspective of historical demonstration, the abrogation of farmland adjustment system should be interpreted as a "superficial consensus", that is, the policy of "increasing people not increasing land, reducing people not reducing land" is the subsidiary product of accomplishing the goal of village governance. In the current social demonstration investigation, the farmland adjustment still has the practical demand, the system implication contained therein cannot be realized by the legal adjustment mode, and the appropriate adjustment time limit should be adopted in the three rounds of contracting. It is still of practical significance to provide economic compensation or other "alternative safeguard" to the new population. On the basis of normative demonstration, in view of the collective decision to intervene in the field of private law with the aid of the collective resolution, the adjustment system also undertakes the functions of keeping the minimum farming unit and integrating the land scale under special circumstances. And it should be supplemented in the Civil Code of China in the future. From different perspective of empirical investigation, we can clarify the conflict between the theory and reality of agricultural land adjustment in China, and then adopt the two-way path of "alternative safeguard" and "Adjustment of existing usufruct right" under the framework of current system. The goal of fair and efficient farmland value should be realized more appropriately.
【作者单位】：中南财经政法大学法学院;
【基金】：中南财经政法大学创新团队计划国家法治与法学理论研究项目“大陆法系农地权利体系研究”(16SFB3034)
【分类号】：F321.1

【相似文献】