承包地“三权分置”的立法回应——基于《农村土地承包法》修正和《民法典物权编》制定视角

Legislative Response to the"Three Rights Division"of Contracted Land:From the Perspective of Amendment of Rural Land Contract Law and Legislation of Property Rights Section of the Civil Code

《农村土地承包法》修正回应了承包地"三权分置"的政策意蕴,值得肯定。该法立足于土地承包经营权的稳定和土地经营权的放活,把土地承包经营权的主体变更仅限为个别调整、农户互换、农户内部转让和农户自愿交回四种情形。土地承包经营权人在流转土地经营权后,仍应享有土地承包经营权,只是该权利的权能受到限制。但是,该法针对土地承包经营权人设定土地经营权的立法体系和对于人地矛盾及土地经营权性质的回避,应予以检讨。土地经营权人再流转土地经营权和融资担保应征得土地承包经营权人的同意,也存在很大的问题。在《民法典物权编》制定的背景下,应把土地经营权直接界定为用益物权。

The amendment of Rural Land Contract Law responds to the policy implication of"the separation of three rights"of contract land,which deserves to be affirmed.Based on the stability of the land contract management right and the liberalization of the land management right,the new Law limits the main body change of the right of land contract management to four situations:individual adjustment,exchange of farmers,internal transfer of farmers and voluntary return of farmers.After transferring the right of land management,the land contract management owner should still enjoy the right of land contract management,but the function of the right is limited.However,the new Law should review the legislative system for the establishment of the right of land management by the right holder and the evasion of the contradiction between human and land and the nature of the right to land management.There are also great problems that the right holder of land management should obtain the consent of the right holder of land contract management to transfer the right of land management and the guarantee of financing.Under the background of the enactment of Property Rights Code of Civil Code,the right of land management should be defined as usufructuary right directly.