摘要
《农村土地承包法》初步完成了农村土地“三权分置”的立法表达,但是对土地经营权权利性质的界定模糊。《民法典》对土地经营权的规范同样没有解决其权利性质的疑问,物权说、债权说均能得到相应条文的支撑。土地经营权的用益物权定性,难以对出租方式设立土地经营权和土地经营权再流转作出合理解释。土地经营权的登记和期限均不应作为其权利性质的判断标准。土地经营权性质应当被界定为债权,这既可以明晰土地承包权的实质,也可解决土地经营权设立和再流转的难题,并为进一步健全土地经营权抵押制度奠定基础。
The"rural land contract law"has initially completed the legislative expression of the three rights separation of rural land,but vague definition of the nature of land management right persists.The regulations of land management right in civil code do not solve the question of its nature,'real right theory'and'creditor's right theory'can be supported by the corresponding provisions of civil code.The'usufructuary right theory'of nature of land management right is difficult to make reasonable explanations for the establishment of land management right by leasing and the re-circulation of land management right.The registration and term of land management right should not be regarded as judgment standard of the nature of its right.The nature of land management right should be defined as creditor's right,which can not only clarify the essence of land contract right,but also solve the problem of establishment and re-circulation of land management right,and lay the foundation for further improving mortgage system of land management right.
出处
《法治研究》
CSSCI
2021年第5期75-83,共9页
Research on Rule of Law
基金
国家社科基金重大项目“农村集体产权制度改革的法治保障研究”(项目编号:19ZDA156)阶段性成果。
作者简介
肖鹏,中国农业大学人文与发展学院教授、博士生导师。
