摘要
“三权分置”下经营权性质的界定,理论界主要有物权说、债权说和二元说,《农村土地承包法》和《民法典》都规定了土地经营权,但都没有明确界定其性质。从有关文件和法律规定可以看出,“三权分置”下的经营权既包括从土地承包经营权中分离出来的经营权,也涵盖了在土地承包经营权之外新设的“经营权”。“三权分置”下的承包权性质应被界定为物权(用益物权)。但不加区分地将经营权性质统一界定为物权(用益物权),在社会实践中则既有有利的一面,也存在一些弊端。在准确把握“三权分置”目标要求基础上,衡量利弊得失得出结论:“三权分置”下经营权的性质不宜统一界定,应依据经营主体的不同和流转期限的不同,分别界定经营权的性质。
The definition of the nature of the management right under the "separation of three rights" mainly involves the theory of real right, the theory of creditor′s right and the theory of duality. Both Law of the People′s Republic of China on Land Contract in Rural Areas and Civil Code of the People′s Republic of China stipulate the provisions of the land management right, but its nature is not clearly defined. It can be seen from the relevant documents and legal provisions that the management right under the "separation of three rights" includes not only the management right separated from the contracted management right, but also the new "management right" set up in addition to the contracted management right. However, it has both advantages and disadvantages to define the nature of management right as real right(usufructuary right) without distinction in social practice. Based on accurately understanding the objective requirements of the "separation of three rights", this paper weighs up the advantages and disadvantages, and draws the conclusion that it is not suitable to define the nature of management right under the "separation of three rights" uniformly. In social practice, the nature of management right should be defined according to its management subject and circulation period.
作者
王连合
WANG Lianhe(School of Business,Linvi University,Linyi,Shandong 276005,China)
出处
《山东科技大学学报（社会科学版）》
2021年第5期23-32,共10页
Journal of Shandong University of Science and Technology(Social Sciences)
关键词
三权分置
经营权
物权
债权
separation of three rights
management right
real right
creditor's right
