Keywords: set * * * has; Collective ownership; state-owned enterprise
Firstly, the concept of set * * * is put forward.
It is generally believed that * * * in the civil law system can be divided into * * * and * * * with * * *. According to * * * from Roman law, it shows a strong individualistic color. * * * has something in common with * * * from Germanic law and is compatible with the collectivism of Germanic law. There is also a communal system in Germanic land law, but "there is basically no communal system as an independent property right in the civil laws of contemporary countries." [ 1]
Scholars believe that the modern concept of * * * is based on the legal principle of individualism laid by the French Revolution in modern times [2]. The modern concept of * * * is based on the premise that everyone has an equal and independent personality. Because * * * is a form of property ownership, and it is a state in which more than two subjects have ownership of the same object. This means that modern * * * has ideas. First of all, it means the confirmation of everyone's personality on the premise that everyone has ownership.
In English law, there are also two forms of "* * * you", which are called * * * you and * * * you by share. When talking about land, the terms * * * with lease and share lease are used, but they are used to refer to the owner of the property in full possession and have nothing to do with the lease law. The difference between the two is that if the lessee dies, his share will be inherited by the heir, whether there is a will or not; And * * * with * * will naturally be added to the shares of other tenants with * * * after the death of one tenant, so that when all tenants with * * * * die and only one person is left, the last living person will become the only owner or tenant. The relationship between * * * and the lessee or * * * and * * * is suitable for management, while the relationship between * * * and the lessee by shares or * * * and the shares is suitable for accepting property interests. For this reason and other reasons, in 1925, the legislature strictly limited the right to lease shares of land to equitable rights and interests [3].
The Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that * * * is owned by shares, and * * * is the same as * * * under ownership. Article 244 of Chapter 16 of Book II "Ownership and Other Real Rights" of the Code stipulates that property owned by two or more persons belongs to them. * * * You can be divided into * * * you (by shares * * *) and * * * you (* * * with * * *) who are not sure about this share; There are * * * kinds of property divided by shares, and the law stipulates that property is * * * and * * [4].
The particularity of this kind of * * * is mainly manifested in the following aspects: First, the group's * * * is inseparable from the property. Second, due to the large number of members, it is impossible for everyone to participate in the management of the property. According to the law or contract, entrust all the property of * * * to manage and operate. Third, all members enjoy the ownership of all the property owned by * * * without any share, and any member has no clear or potential share in the property owned by * * *. Fourth, the enjoyment of rights is based on a certain identity and is directly obtained according to the law. Losing this identity means losing rights, and it is impossible to claim the division of property. The death of a member does not give rise to the right of inheritance. Fifth, the rights of members are mainly manifested in two ways: one is to participate in the decision-making of the same institution through democratic means; The second is to finally enjoy the property interests of * * *.
It can be seen that the main difference between this type of * * * and * * by share is that * * * by share is mainly aimed at a single thing, while * * * someone has a clear share of public property and can inherit and transfer it; And this kind of * * * is aimed at collective property. Some people have no clear share of collective property, and their membership cannot be inherited and transferred. The basic connotation of set * * * is that several people enjoy equal and indivisible ownership of the whole property based on a certain identity. If one of them retires or dies, his rights will be lost and naturally added to other owners.
Second, the set * * * has the meaning of putting forward the concept.
(A) improved the * * * system in China.
For a long time, the theoretical research on * * * you in civil law has been limited to * * * you and * * * you and * * *, and some people even think that "* * * you are the source of disputes". It is suggested that individual ownership should be encouraged as much as possible in legislative policy, and you should be avoided as much as possible. However, modern large-scale production can't be done by one person, and it is the mainstream in economic life to establish enterprises by combining the financial resources of many people. Using the traditional theory of * * * to explain the private economy will not have much problem, but it is not enough to explain the public economy. The concept of collective * * * is put forward, starting from the reality of China, drawing lessons from similar systems in the legal history and combining with the national conditions of China to carry out creative transformation, which opens up a new way for the discussion on the legal realization of public ownership.
(2) The concept of collective * * * is put forward, which embodies the connection between members and * * * property.
The concept of "collective" emphasizes the whole, not the individual, thus giving people the impression that "only the whole is important and members can only passively obey the collective arrangement". Objectively, it will also lead to excessive intervention of state power in collective organizations, which is not conducive to cultivating the democratic spirit and autonomy concept of society.
Third, set up some comparative law references.
(a) Collective * * * is related to the group * * * in the Civil Code of Vietnam.
Article 234 of the Civil Code of Vietnam stipulates: "Clans, villages, cities, towns, religious figures and other residents' groups owned by the group * * * all properties formed by customs, contributions made by members of the group, donated properties, gifts accepted, the property of the whole group and other sources that meet the legal requirements." "Every member of the group manages, uses and disposes of the same property of the group in accordance with the agreement or habit for the same interests of the group, but shall not violate the law and social morality." "Group * * * is inseparable from property * * * has property. [6]"
(b) Set * * * to the total.
There is always a form of "a * * body that is composed of most people, but has not yet formed legal person status, and is owned by group membership." Its characteristics are as follows: first, the division of ownership. Second, the management right of ownership belongs to the villagers' group, and its management or punishment should be agreed by the group members' meeting, or decided by the majority based on the * * * same body statute. Third, the ownership of usufructuary right belongs to group members (villagers). Fourth, the rights based on group membership do not exist without group membership, and their loss and changes are the same as their fate, so they do not have the nature of independent property rights and cannot be transferred. Fifth, there is no proper part of the property and it is impossible to request division. It is a legal form of land management and utilization in Germanic law [7].
Recently, some scholars refer to the total right structure and propose that collective ownership has the same realization form. The general idea of this theory is that total ownership refers to the right of all residents in villages, villagers' groups, towns and other communities to completely control their collectively owned property in order to realize common interests. The general owner has the right to manage, possess, use, benefit and dispose of the property of the general owner. The realization of general rights depends on the relevant power organizations, management organizations, supervision organizations and their division of responsibilities and checks and balances [8].
This paper holds that the theoretical goal of the so-called general agreement is to establish the main position of collective members in collective economic management, but we can't see the role of collective members in the above statement. The author also wants to reshape the organizational structure of collective ownership through the separation of decision-making power, execution power and supervision power in modern corporate governance structure, and his good intentions can be imagined. However, China's collective ownership is not a simple property right. The so-called collective economic organizations do not exist in most villages, and the representatives of collective ownership are mostly exercised by villagers' committees and villagers' groups. These institutions have administrative responsibilities and are also organizations in public law. Although their appointment and removal of personnel is based on the principle of basic mass autonomy, they are subject to repeated interference from higher-level governments, and it is very difficult to reorganize into standard private enterprises.
(3) Collective ownership belongs to cooperatives.
It is suggested that the legal framework of cooperatives should be used to reform the existing collective ownership [9]. The initial target model of our collective economy is indeed the western cooperative economy. Later, because of the changes in the country's political and economic situation, taking Russia as the teacher, the goal of cooperative economy changed to Soviet-style collective farm economy. We now have a law on farmers' professional cooperatives, but the situation of collective ownership economy is varied. How to regulate it with a single cooperative law? More importantly, cooperatives are essentially a private ownership, while collective ownership is a public ownership. There are still some important differences between the two in specific aspects. Unless we give up some inherent characteristics of collective ownership, cooperatives cannot be used as the target model of collective ownership reform.