论文部分内容阅读
巩献田教授《公开信》事件引起了广泛的社会关注。《公开信》认为物权法草案违反了《宪法》第12务规定,是违宪的产物。但本文分析认为,《公开信》指责物权法草案“废除”了《宪法》第12条关于“公共财产神圣不可侵犯”的规定,会动摇这一条规定所代表的生产资料的社会主义公有制基础,是没有实证根据的。物权法草案并不因为没有重复《宪法》第12条关于“公共财产神圣不可侵犯”的条文而违宪,这一条规定也并不能代表生产资料的社会主义公有制;而说明和规定生产资料的社会主义公有制的实质性规范主要集中在《宪法》第6条至第11条。事实上,在实质内容方面,物权法草案几乎是照抄照搬地援引了《宪法》有关社会主义公有制的一些规定。巩教授《公开信》以物权法草案违宪为由,仅仅是通过危言耸听的方式,表达他对改革开放过程中出现的贫富不均、国有资产流失与私有化现象的不满,并试图再次将社会财富主要集中在“国家”这一被神圣化的字眼之下,以此表达他的旧有的计划体制政治愿望。但他却忽视了财产权作为一项基本人权的个体属性,以及它在限制政治行为中的法治构建意义。因此,他是在一个错误的时机错误地选择了一部法律草案而进行了一些错误的论述。民法学界目前对巩教授《公开信》展开的回应中,没有完全采取理性分析和实证研究的态度,还带有一些感情色彩,并有再次将问题意识形态化的倾向。学术界应该以此次讨论为契机,厘清支撑计划体制的财产权理论,并为之敲响丧钟,从而为民事立法扫清理论与思想上的障碍。
Professor Gong Xiantian “open letter” incident has aroused widespread social concern. “Open Letter” that the draft real rights law violated the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution, is unconstitutional product. However, the analysis in this paper argues that the “open letter” accusing the draft real rights law “abolishing” the stipulation in Article 12 of the Constitution that “the sacred inviolability of public property” should shake the socialist public ownership of the means of production represented by this article Basis, there is no empirical basis. The draft real rights law is not unconstitutional because it does not duplicate the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution concerning the sacred inviolability of public property, nor does it provide for the socialist public ownership of the means of production. The law governing the production of information The substantive norms of public ownership are mainly concentrated in Articles 6 to 11 of the Constitution. In fact, in substance, the draft property law almost invariably copied some provisions of the Constitution concerning public ownership of socialism. Professor Gong “open letter” is based on the unconstitutionality of the Draft Property Rights Law only through alarmist ways to express his dissatisfaction with the uneven distribution of wealth, loss of state-owned assets and privatization in the process of reform and opening up. He also tried to re-classify the social wealth Concentrate on the sanctity of the “state” as a way of expressing his old planning political desire. However, he neglected the individual property of property as a basic human right and the significance of its construction of the rule of law in restricting political behavior. Therefore, he made some erroneous arguments by mistakenly choosing a draft law at a wrong time. At present, civil law scholars’ response to Professor Gong’s open letter is based on the fact that there is no attitude toward rational analysis and empirical research, but also some emotional feelings and a tendency to re-ideize the problem. Academics should take this discussion as an opportunity to clarify the theory of property rights that underpin the planning system and strike a death knell to clear the theoretical and ideological obstacles to civil legislation.