民法典背景下社会企业法律形态的学理反思与中国选择

Theoretical Reflections on the Legal Framework of Social Enterprises in Light of the Civil Code:China's Path Forward

明确社会企业的法律形态是使其成为“法律内部语言”的题中之义。学界此前的经验归纳式研究仅关注社会企业法律形态“是什么”的问题,而充分回答“应当是什么”则必须诉诸法教义学的逻辑理性。社会企业对于法律形态的需求在于承载“经济性”与“社会性”,在《民法典》所列明的民事主体中部分归属于理论话语下的“公法人”,内含“国家派生性”而与“经济性”相矛盾得以被整体排除;剩余的私法主体则必须接受“资产分割理论”的检视,以证明拥有足够独立的财产,在保证自身长久存续的前提下保障“社会性”的稳定实现。基于上述逻辑理路,可在既存全部民事主体间作出清晰的舍取——首先排除机关法人、事业单位等“公法人”法律形态;其次在私法主体中明确公司法人与农民专业合作社法人为持有最低限度独立财产的适格形态,进而据此排除非法人组织与“两户”之适格性。但法律载明之处,即分析理性功用的边界,面对新生民事主体涌现的可能,社会企业法律形态条款修订应秉持适度开放的态度,将话语权交还历史。

Clarifying the legal form of social enterprises is essential for establishing their status as the"internal language of law".Previous empirical research has primarily focused on the question of"what"the legal form of social enterprises is.However,to comprehensively address"what should be,"we must rely on the logical rationality of legal doctrine.The demand for legal forms in social enterprises encompasses both"economic"and"social"dimensions.Some civil subjects defined in the Civil Code fall under the theoretical framework of"public legal persons,"which contain"state-derived"elements that contradict the"econom-ic"aspects,thus warranting their exclusion.The remaining private law subjects must be evaluated through the lens of"asset divi-sion theory"to demonstrate that they posss sufficient independent property to support the stable realization of their"social"functions while ensuring their long-term viability.Based on this logical reasoning,we can reach a clear compromise regarding ex-isting civil subjects:firstly,legal forms such as"public legal persons,"including government agencies and public institutions,should be excluded;secondly,among private law subjects,it should be clarified that the legal forms of companies and farmers'professional cooperatives qualify as entities holding the minimum required independent property,thereby excluding unincorporated organizations and"two households."However,where the law specifies,particularly in the realm of rational function analysis,we should adopt a moderately open approach to the potential emergence of new civil subjects.The revision of legal provisions for so-cial enterprises should return the discourse power to historical context.