烏木歸屬實務分析
[Abstract]:In recent years, there have been several cases of black wood ownership disputes, which have attracted the attention of practice and academic circles. Pengzhou's Tianjiao Wu Mu case has attracted much attention and aroused great interest in the media and academic circles. There are also different opinions on the nature and ownership of black wood. Although more and more similar property has been found, national legislation in this area has not been improved accordingly. There are many different views on the ownership of black wood in academic circles. There are the following main types: owned by the state, owned by the landowners, the applicable preemptive system is owned by the preemptive, difficult to identify, and so on. In the final analysis, the ownership of black wood depends on the nature of black wood. What is the nature of black wood, the more important points of view are: natural breeding theory, mineral theory, buried object theory and no main object theory. Through argumentation, it is ruled out that black wood belongs to natural fruits, buried objects and no main objects. Black wood should belong to nothing. There is no concept of no subject in the law of our country, and there are no rules applicable to it. The common way to deal with it abroad is to apply the principle of preemption. The legal system of other countries is different from that of our country, all of which can not simply transfer the foreign rules of non-subject matter to China. It is necessary to demonstrate the legitimacy of the preemptive system in the civil law system of our country. The author makes two hypotheses. It is concluded that whether it is simply owned by the state or preemptive, there are major loopholes. According to the characteristics of our own economic system, we must treat different values of non-subject according to the theory of labor remuneration. Finally, in order to prevent the recurrence of such disputes, we should clearly define the concepts of unowned and buried objects, and improve the relevant legislation. Through legislation, the preemptive system and its constituent elements are clearly stipulated. On the basis of adhering to the public ownership of our country, we should ensure the interests of the people to the maximum extent.
【學位授予單位】:黑龍江大學
【學位級別】:碩士
【學位授予年份】:2015
【分類號】:D923.2
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 魏昀;;我國無主物之立法現(xiàn)狀及其制度構建[J];沈陽大學學報;2009年04期
2 文海興;王曉光;;論無主物的先占取得[J];中南政法學院學報;1992年04期
3 錢付濤;;唐律關于無主物的規(guī)定及當代借鑒意義[J];法制與社會;2006年15期
4 匡俊;;論無主物的盜竊[J];上海政法學院學報(法治論叢);2013年05期
5 張怡超;王云飛;;論無主物法律制度的價值及在我國的適用——兼評我國《物權法》草案第九章[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學院學報;2007年01期
6 李海軍;;大學校園無主自行車管理創(chuàng)新的法律分析[J];法制與社會;2011年07期
7 姚輝;;“拋棄物”的認定[J];中國審判;2007年07期
8 孟俊紅;;論無主物與遺失物的區(qū)別及無主物的推定[J];河南教育學院學報(哲學社會科學版);2009年06期
9 張繼孟;羅馬法的先占取得原理及其現(xiàn)實意義[J];法律科學.西北政法學院學報;1989年05期
10 張繼孟;羅馬法中的先占取得及其對我國的借鑒意義[J];比較法研究;1990年03期
相關重要報紙文章 前7條
1 沈陽師范大學法學院 李迪昕;無主物致人損害的責任歸屬[N];中國社會科學報;2014年
2 江超;撿到彩票悄悄兌獎的法律認定[N];江蘇經濟報;2013年
3 本報實習生 余茜;如今拾錢該交到誰手里[N];文匯報;2011年
4 楊濤;提供法律幫助也是一種救濟[N];法制日報;2008年
5 河南省平頂山市人民檢察院 王曉民;陪葬品不是無主物盜取也構成盜竊罪[N];檢察日報;2009年
6 袁定波;法律如何應對地震引發(fā)的物權問題[N];法制日報;2008年
7 司法部《中國司法》雜志 劉武俊;烏木之爭需要法律給個說法[N];經濟參考報;2013年
相關碩士學位論文 前10條
1 馬榮星;論無主物的認定及歸屬[D];遼寧大學;2015年
2 王麗煥;烏木的法律屬性及所有權歸屬問題探究[D];重慶大學;2015年
3 李毅;無主物權屬的界定研究[D];鄭州大學;2015年
4 黨海軍;涉嫌走私語境下“無主物”案件研究[D];暨南大學;2014年
5 王歡;烏木歸屬法律問題分析[D];黑龍江大學;2015年
6 丁文超;烏木歸屬實務分析[D];黑龍江大學;2015年
7 石紅萍;無主物歸屬制度研究[D];西南政法大學;2014年
8 徐達;珍稀無主物所有權取得方式研究[D];甘肅政法學院;2014年
9 肖義剛;論無主物的民事法律規(guī)制[D];西南政法大學;2013年
10 昌志高;無主物所有權歸屬及其占有保護[D];華中科技大學;2013年
,本文編號:2481215
本文鏈接:http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2481215.html