城市土地“国家所有”的困惑与消解

Confusion over “State-owned” Urban Land and Clearance

本文从中国、美国、加拿大等国的比较分析出发,论证了土地所有权和使用权分离的可行性与必然性,纠正了1982年宪法一夜之间将城市私人土地"国有化"的简单化理解。这种错误理解不仅违背了尊重人权、法治、公正和市场规律的宪法精神,而且已经在实践中造成了极其严重的社会后果。世界各国的经验表明,所有权是可以分割的,名义所有权完全可以和实际使用权相分离。文章认为,对于城市"国有土地","全民"所有权只能是一种名义所有权,1982年宪法关于城市土地"国家所有"的规定并未剥夺任何个人或单位的土地使用权。

On the basis of comparative analysis of China, the United States, Canada and other countries, this article demonstrates the possibility and necessity of the separation of land ownership and land usufruct and rectifies the simplistic understanding that the Constitution 1982 made urban private land become state -owned land. This wrong understanding does not only violate constitution＇ s spirit that human rights, the rule of law, justice and market disciplinarian must be respected, but also produces very serious social consequences in practice. Other countries＇ experiences demonstrate that ownership can be segmented and that nominal owner- ship can be separated from practical usufruct. With respect to ＂state -owned land＂, the author believes that the ownership owned by the whole people is only the nominal ownership and that the relevant provisions concerning ＂state-owned＂ urban land in the Constitution 1982 do not deprive any citizens＇ or organizations＇ land usufruct.