中国财产征收制度研究
|
摘要
在我国目前的土地制度下,财产征收包括农村土地征收和城市房屋拆迁两个部分。我国现有的财产征收制度存在较多缺陷,相关理论研究也有不足。
本文以美国、日本和德国的财产征收制度作为比较研究的对象,从目的、补偿、程序三个方面对财产征收的理论问题进行了研究:1)从美国和日本的法律对财产征收的目的制约中,提炼出对征收项目进行分类的三项标准和判断公共目的的两条准则;2)对美国和德国法律对管制征收的判定准则进行了研究;3)对Michelman的多因素功利主义模型进行扩展,将负道德成本进一步细分为不公平成本、无效率成本、社会紧张成本。用扩展后的模型对政府的征收决策进行成本收益分析,探讨社会最优的补偿原则;4)对征收涉及的财产价值进行分类,利用此分析框架对各国现有补偿标准和计算方法进行研究,总结社会最优的征收补偿标准;5)研究日美两国的征收程序与法律救济途径,总结出良好的征收程序应当具备的要素。
以上述研究成果为参照,从征收目的制约、管制征收判定、实体征收的补偿原则和标准、征收程序设置等方面对我国现行财产征收制度进行了分析,对影响政府征收决策的相关制度及正在进行中的改革进行了研究,并提出了进一步的改革建议:1)制定统一征收法,对两类征收行为统一进行规范。2)统一对不同对象的征收目的制约,按照本文提出的两条规则判定“公共目的”。3)以“一个理论,两条规则,三项因素”作为管制征收的判定标准。4)重新制定补偿标准,采用公平补偿原则,以公平市场价格为基础,对被征收财产的全部客观价值和部分主观价值进行补偿。5)将协议价购作为申请征收的必要前置程序,增加征收目的检验程序,改革征收范围和征收补偿检验程序,保障被征收者的知情权和参与权,为被征收者提供充足而廉价的司法救济途径。6)按照“同地、同权、同价”的原则,允许集体建设用地使用权在符合规划限制的条件下自由转让。7)改革财政制度、官员选拔任用制度和司法制度,减少地方政府从征收中得到的收入,将任职地民众对官员的评价作为主要的考核指标,增强司法机构在征收案件审判中的独立性。
Under the current land system, there are two kinds of condemnation in China: condemnation of the rural collective ownership and condemnation of the right to use urban land. Both of them have many defects.
Taking the condemnation systems in America, Japan and Germany as objects of comparative study, some theoretical questions were researched in terms of purpose, compensation and procedure: 1) Three criteria to classify projects and two rules to judge public purpose are abstracted from the purpose limitation in condemnation law in America and Japan; 2) The rules to judge regulatory takings in America and Germany are analyzed; 3) Expand the multifactor utilitarian economic analyzing framework presented by Frank Michelman, decompose the demoralization costs to three items: injustice cost, inefficiency cost and social tension cost, then use the expanded framework to analyze the taking decision of government and optimum principles of compensation; 4) Compensation standards in foreign countries are analyzed in terms of classification of the values and costs involved in takings, the social optimum compensation standard is put forward. 5) The procedures of condemnation and approaches to judicial relief in America and Japan are discussed; some necessary factors for an excellent procedure are summed up.
The current condemnation system in China is researched on the basis of the theoretical results. Other systems affecting the decision of government and the proceeding reform are also analyzed. Reform in the future should focus on the following points: 1) Make uniform condemnation law; 2) Use the two rules put forward by this dissertation to judge whether a project has a public purpose; 3) Use“one theory, two rules, three factors”to judge regulatory takings; 4) Adjust the compensation standard, take just compensation principle and compensate all the object values and part of subject values of the condemnee. 5) Set purchase by agreement as preceding procedure of condemnation. Add purpose check procedure and reform area, compensation check procedure. Ensure condemnee’s right to know and right to participate. Give them enough and cheap approach to get judicial relief. 6) Open primary land market and treat two kinds of land ownership equally. Allow the transfer of the right to use collective land for construction which accord with planning. 7) Reduce the revenue of local government from the actions of condemnation. Take opinions from local people as a major examination index for officials. Enhance the independence of courts that deal with condemnation cases.
本文以美国、日本和德国的财产征收制度作为比较研究的对象,从目的、补偿、程序三个方面对财产征收的理论问题进行了研究:1)从美国和日本的法律对财产征收的目的制约中,提炼出对征收项目进行分类的三项标准和判断公共目的的两条准则;2)对美国和德国法律对管制征收的判定准则进行了研究;3)对Michelman的多因素功利主义模型进行扩展,将负道德成本进一步细分为不公平成本、无效率成本、社会紧张成本。用扩展后的模型对政府的征收决策进行成本收益分析,探讨社会最优的补偿原则;4)对征收涉及的财产价值进行分类,利用此分析框架对各国现有补偿标准和计算方法进行研究,总结社会最优的征收补偿标准;5)研究日美两国的征收程序与法律救济途径,总结出良好的征收程序应当具备的要素。
以上述研究成果为参照,从征收目的制约、管制征收判定、实体征收的补偿原则和标准、征收程序设置等方面对我国现行财产征收制度进行了分析,对影响政府征收决策的相关制度及正在进行中的改革进行了研究,并提出了进一步的改革建议:1)制定统一征收法,对两类征收行为统一进行规范。2)统一对不同对象的征收目的制约,按照本文提出的两条规则判定“公共目的”。3)以“一个理论,两条规则,三项因素”作为管制征收的判定标准。4)重新制定补偿标准,采用公平补偿原则,以公平市场价格为基础,对被征收财产的全部客观价值和部分主观价值进行补偿。5)将协议价购作为申请征收的必要前置程序,增加征收目的检验程序,改革征收范围和征收补偿检验程序,保障被征收者的知情权和参与权,为被征收者提供充足而廉价的司法救济途径。6)按照“同地、同权、同价”的原则,允许集体建设用地使用权在符合规划限制的条件下自由转让。7)改革财政制度、官员选拔任用制度和司法制度,减少地方政府从征收中得到的收入,将任职地民众对官员的评价作为主要的考核指标,增强司法机构在征收案件审判中的独立性。
Under the current land system, there are two kinds of condemnation in China: condemnation of the rural collective ownership and condemnation of the right to use urban land. Both of them have many defects.
Taking the condemnation systems in America, Japan and Germany as objects of comparative study, some theoretical questions were researched in terms of purpose, compensation and procedure: 1) Three criteria to classify projects and two rules to judge public purpose are abstracted from the purpose limitation in condemnation law in America and Japan; 2) The rules to judge regulatory takings in America and Germany are analyzed; 3) Expand the multifactor utilitarian economic analyzing framework presented by Frank Michelman, decompose the demoralization costs to three items: injustice cost, inefficiency cost and social tension cost, then use the expanded framework to analyze the taking decision of government and optimum principles of compensation; 4) Compensation standards in foreign countries are analyzed in terms of classification of the values and costs involved in takings, the social optimum compensation standard is put forward. 5) The procedures of condemnation and approaches to judicial relief in America and Japan are discussed; some necessary factors for an excellent procedure are summed up.
The current condemnation system in China is researched on the basis of the theoretical results. Other systems affecting the decision of government and the proceeding reform are also analyzed. Reform in the future should focus on the following points: 1) Make uniform condemnation law; 2) Use the two rules put forward by this dissertation to judge whether a project has a public purpose; 3) Use“one theory, two rules, three factors”to judge regulatory takings; 4) Adjust the compensation standard, take just compensation principle and compensate all the object values and part of subject values of the condemnee. 5) Set purchase by agreement as preceding procedure of condemnation. Add purpose check procedure and reform area, compensation check procedure. Ensure condemnee’s right to know and right to participate. Give them enough and cheap approach to get judicial relief. 6) Open primary land market and treat two kinds of land ownership equally. Allow the transfer of the right to use collective land for construction which accord with planning. 7) Reduce the revenue of local government from the actions of condemnation. Take opinions from local people as a major examination index for officials. Enhance the independence of courts that deal with condemnation cases.
引文
[1]国土资源部. 2004年中国国土资源公报[EB/OL]. (2005-05-23) [2007-12-03]. http://www.mlr.gov.cn/zwgk/tjxx/.
[2]国土资源部. 2005年中国国土资源公报[EB/OL]. (2006-04-29) [2007-12-03]. http://www.mlr.gov.cn/zwgk/tjxx/200710/t20071025_89743.htm.
[3]国土资源部. 2006年中国国土资源公报[EB/OL]. (2007-06-26) [2007-12-03]. http://www.mlr.gov.cn/zwgk/tjxx/200710/t20071025_89745.htm.
[4]王平.地根政治:全面剖析中国土地制度.中国改革, 2005,(7):16-20.
[5]罗昌平.湖南嘉禾拆迁事件.新京报, 2004-05-15.
[6]孙坷.甘肃清水株连拆迁事件调查.新西部, 2004, (7):8-11.
[7] Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. 80 U.S. 166. (1871).
[8]王赐江.房屋拆迁缘何导致“自焚事件”.人民网. (2003-09-22) [2006-10-24]. http://www.people.com.cn/GB/guandian/1034/2099796.html.
[9]黄章晋.将写入国史:宪法修正案里一个逗号的删改.中国青年报, 2004-03-15.
[10]司艳丽.论集体建设用地使用权流转的法律规制[博士学位论文].北京:中国政法大学, 2006.
[11]费杨生.土地违法“花样迭出”.中国证券报, 2006-06-12.
[12]物权法草案未对“公共利益”作出界定[EB/OL]. (2006-08-22) [2007-11-23]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2006-08/22/content_4993807.htm.
[13] K·茨威格特, H·克茨.比较法总论.潘汉典,米健,高鸿钧等,译.北京:法律出版社, 2003.
[14]大木雅夫.比较法.范愉,译.北京:法律出版社, 2006.
[15] Kelo v. City of New London. 125 S. Ct. 2655. (2005).
[16] Lameiras M. States Take Action to Limit Eminent Domain. 2007, 122(1):8-10.
[17]姜明安.行政法与行政诉讼法.北京:中国卓越出版公司, 1990.
[18]林来梵.论私人财产权的宪法保障.法学, 1999,(3):14-21.
[19]林来梵.针对国家享有的财产权——从比较法角度的一个考察.法商研究, 2003,(1):54-62.
[20]王太高.行政补偿制度研究[博士学位论文].苏州:苏州大学, 2003.
[21]蒲杰,余斌.房屋拆迁权的滥用与预防.现代法学, 2002, 24(4):143-146.
[22]费安玲.私权理念与城市私房拆迁的立法.政法论坛, 2004, 22(5):40-49.
[23]张曙光.征地拆迁案的法律经济分析.中国土地, 2004,(5):12-16.
[24]张韵声.征用补偿制度比较研究[博士学位论文].北京:对外经济贸易大学, 2006.
[25]王成栋,江利红.行政征用权与公民财产权的界限——公共利益.政法论坛, 2003,
[26]李累.美国宪法上的财产征用制度[博士学位论文].北京:中国人民大学, 1999.
[27]李累.论法律对财产权的限制──兼论我国宪法财产权规范体系的缺陷及其克服.法制与社会发展, 2002,(2):41-53.
[28]李累,矫波.美国联邦最高法院财产权案件裁决意见的历史演变及其启示.学术研究, 2002,(2):79-83.
[29]张千帆.“公共利益”是什么.法学论坛, 2005, 20(1):28-31.
[30]张千帆.“公共利益”的困境与出路.中国法学, 2005,(5):36-45.
[31] Berman v. Parker. 348 U.S. 26. (1954).
[32] Gallagher E F. Breaking New Ground: Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development. Fordham Law Review, 2005, 73(4):1837-1873.
[33] Corey J W. The Struggle over the Public Use Clause: Survey of Holdings and Trends, 1986-2003. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 2004, 39(2):251-274.
[34] Lopez E J, Totah S M. Kelo and Its Discontents: The Worst (or Best?) Thing to Happen to Property Rights. Independent Review, 2007, 11(3):397.
[35] D'Orazio G. Taking Private Property to Build an Urban Sports Arena: A Valid Exercise of Eminent Domain Powers? Albany Law Review, 2007, 69(4):1135-1167.
[36] Sandefur T. Don't Mess with Property Rights in Texas. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 2006, 41(2):227-252.
[37] Cohen C. Eminent Domain after Kelo v. City of New London. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2006, 29(2):491-568.
[38] Bell A, Parchomovsky G. The Useless of Public Use. Columbia Law Review, 2006, 106(6):1412-1449.
[39] Esptein R A. Takings: Private Property and the Right of Eminent Domain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985:7-18, 57-62, 107-125.
[40]谢哲胜.财产法专题研究(2).北京:人民大学出版社, 2005:156-157.
[41]李蕊.国外土地征收制度考察研究——以德、美两国为重点考察对象.重庆社会科学, 2005,(3):69-74.
[42] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. 112 S. Ct. 2886. (U. S. 1992).
[43]林来梵.美国宪法判例中的财产权保护——以lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council为焦点.浙江社会科学, 2003,(5):76-83.
[44] Vickory F A, Diskin B A. Advances in Private Property Protection Rights: The States in the Vanguard. American Business Law Journal, 1997, 34(4):563-607.
[45] United States v. Causby. 328 U.S. 258. (1946).
[46] Kahn R. Inverse Condemnation and the Highway Cases: Compensation for Abutting Landowners. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2004, 22(3):563-591.
[47]王晓明.城市化进程中失地农民权益问题研究[硕士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2003.
[48]朱明芬.浙江失地农民利益保障现状调查与对策.中国农村经济, 2003,(3):65-70.
[49]张千帆.“公正补偿”与征收权的宪法限制.法学研究, 2005,(2):25-37.
[50]邢明娟.我国集体农用地转为城市建设用地问题研究[硕士学位论文].北京:清华大学, 2005.
[51]倪瑛,周文,唐兵.对农地征用制度的经济学思考.经济问题探索, 2006,(8):62-65.
[52]钱忠好.土地征用:均衡与非均衡——对现行中国土地征用制度的经济分析.管理世界, 2004,(12):50-59.
[53]强真.农地征收过程中土地价格关系研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国农业大学, 2005.
[54]吕彦彬.涉县土地征用中的土地收益分配研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国农业大学, 2003.
[55]闵一峰.城市房屋拆迁补偿制度的经济学研究[博士学位论文].南京:南京农业大学, 2005.
[56]罗丹,严瑞珍,陈洁.不同农村土地非农化模式的利益分配机制比较研究.管理世界, 2004,(9):87-96.
[57]任浩,郝晋珉.剪刀差对农地价格的影响.中国土地科学, 2003,(3):38-43.
[58]王小映,贺明,玉高永.我国农地转用中的土地收益分配实证研究——基于昆山、桐城、新都三地的抽样调查分析.管理世界, 2006,(5):62-68.
[59]华元春,徐忠国,赵哲远.“征地区片价”在浙江的变革:起始及现状与未来.国土资源科技管理, 2006,(6):20-23.
[60]段文技.征地补偿标准的革新——区片综合地价实证分析.农业技术经济, 2006,(6):65-69.
[61] Michelman F I. Property, Utility, and Fairness: Commnets on the Ethic Foundation of "Just Compensation" Law. Harvard Law Review, 1967, 80(6):1165-1260.
[62] Fischel W E. The Political Economy of Just Compensation: Lessons from the Military Draft for the Takings Issue. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1996, 20(1):23-63.
[63] Esposto F G. The Political Economy of Taking and Just Compensation. Public Choice, 1996, 89:267-282.
[64] Heller M A, Krier J E. Deterrence and Distribution in the Law of Takings. Harvard Law Review, 1999, 112(5):997-1025.
[65] Rogers T A. A Dubious Development: Tax Increment Financing and Economically Motivated Condemnation. Review of Litigation, 1998, 17(1):145-180.
[66] Knepper D. Eliminating the Federal Subsidy in Kelo: Restricting the Availability of Tax-Exempt Financing for Redevelopment Projects. Georgetown Law Journal, 2006, 94(5):1635-1665.
[67] Beck-Dudley C L, Macdonald J E. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Takings, and the Search for the Common Good. American Business Law Journal, 1995, 33(2):153-178.
[68]雷震,邢祖礼.农村土地征用中的价格博弈分析.财经科学, 2006,(8):97-103.
[69]柯小兵,何高潮.从三层博弈关系看土地征收制度改革——基于某大学城征地案例的分析.中国土地科学, 2006, 20(3):14-18.
[70]汪晖.城市化进程中的土地制度研究[博士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2002.
[71]陈会广.经济发展中土地非农化的制度响应与政府征用绩效研究[硕士学位论文].南京:南京农业大学, 2004.
[72] Innes R. The Economics of Takings and Compensation When Land and Its Public Use Value Are in Private Hands. Land Economics, 2000, 76(2):195-212.
[73]程洁.土地征收征用中的程序失范与重构.法学研究, 2006,(1):62-78.
[74]李晓妹.美国蒙大拿州土地征收制度.中国土地, 2003,(9):42-45.
[75]王正立,刘丽.国外土地征用补偿程序及纠纷解决.国土资源情报, 2004,(1):6-8.
[76]胡献旁.我国城市房屋拆迁的几个法律问题研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国政法大学, 2004.
[77]林乐.土地征用过程与被征地农民的应对行为实证研究[硕士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2005.
[78]王文英.农村土地征收行政法律问题研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国政法大学, 2004.
[79]张林江.围绕农村土地的权力博弈[博士学位论文].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院, 2003.
[80]孔善广.地方政府为何变坏.新青年·权衡, 2006,(9):21-25.
[81]蒋省三,刘守英.土地解密.财经, 2006,(4):23-35.
[82]梁慧星.民法解释学.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1995:190-192.
[83]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论.陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆, 2003:200-223.
[84]梁慧星.民法解释学.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1995:214.
[85]中国社会科学院法学研究所.法律辞典.北京:法律出版社, 2003.
[86]梁慧星.民法总论.北京:法律出版社, 2001:98.
[87] Garner B A, eds. Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004.
[88]李伟.论准征收的构成要件.哈尔滨工业大学学报社会科学版, 2007,(6):67-70.
[89]姜明安.七问征收补偿,我们离合理还有多远.方圆法治, 2007,(17):5-7.
[90]周枬.罗马法原论(上).北京:商务印书馆, 2002:327.
[91]洛克.政府论[M/Ol].瞿菊农,叶启芳,译.北京:商务印书馆, 1982[2007-11-26].http://www.worldpublaw.sdu.edu.cn/cms/plus/view.php?aid=126.
[92]黑格尔.法哲学原理.范扬,张企泰,译.北京:商务印书馆, 1982:50-54.
[93]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论.王晓晔等,译.北京:法律出版社, 2003:86-88.
[94]狄骥.宪法学教程.王文利,译.沈阳:春风文艺出版社, 1999:6.
[95] Grotius H. De Jure Belli Ac Pacis. Kelsey,译. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1925:219.
[96] Pufendorf S v. De Officio Hominis Et Civis Juxta Legem Naturalem. Silverthorne,译. New York: Cambridge Univercity Press, 1991:166-167.
[97] Posner R A. Economics, Politics, and the Reading of Statutes and the Constitution. University of Chicago Law Review, 1982, 49:243-265.
[98] Posner R A. Economic Analysis of Law.北京: CITIC Publishing House: Aspen Publishers, Inc, 2003:40-41.
[99] Polinsky M A. Resolving Nuisance Disputes: The Simple Economics of Injunctive and Damage Remedies. Stanford Law Review, 1980, 32:1075-1112.
[100]郭洁.土地征用若干民事法律问题研究.社会科学辑刊, 2001,(2):59-64.
[101]陈新民.中国行政法学原理.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2002:42-46.
[102]余凌云.论行政法上的比例原则[EB/OL]. (2003-05-28) [2007-09-21]. http://www.chinalawedu.com/news/2003_11%5C5%5C1133459192.htm.
[103]黄学贤.行政法中的比例原则简论.苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2001,(1):42-45.
[104] Sales N A. Classical Republicanism and the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" Requirement. Duke Law Journal, 1999, 49:339-350.
[105] Wood G S. The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787. University of North Carolina Press, 1969:52.
[106] Treanor W M. The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process. Columbia Law Review, 1995, 95:782-821.
[107] Armstrong v. United States. 364 U.S. 40, 49. (1960).
[108] Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. 483 U.S. 104. (1978).
[109]曼瑟尔·奥尔森.集体行动的逻辑.陈郁,译.上海:三联书店, 1995:48.
[110] Macey J R. Promoting Public Regarding Legislation through Statutory Interpretation; a Interest Group Model. Columbia Law Review, 1986, 86:223-227.
[111]戈登·塔洛克.寻租:对寻租活动的经济学分析.成都:西南财经大学出版社, 1999:64.
[112] Kochan D J. 'Public Use' and the Independent Judiciary: Condemnation in an Interest-Group Perspective. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 1998, 3(1):49-116.
[113] Abraham Bell G P. Taking Compensation Private. Stanford Law Review, 2007, 59(4):871-906.
[114]黄祖辉,汪晖.非公共利益性质的征地行为与土地发展权补偿.经济研究, 2002, 5:66-71.
[115]张文显.法理学.北京:高等教育出版社, 1999:341.
[116] Kohl v. United States. 91 U.S. 367. (1875).
[117] Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. 467 U.S. 229. (1984).
[118] Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway Co. 208 U.S. 598. (1908).
[119] United States v. Carolene Products Co. 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234. (1938).
[120] Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit. 304 N.W.2d 455. (Mich 1981).
[121] Wayne County v. Hathcock. 684 N.W.2d 765. (Mich 2004).
[122] Berliner D. Public Power, Private Gain: A Five Year, State-by-State Report Examining the Abuse of Eminent Domain[EB/OL]. Institute for Justice. (2003-11-23) [2007--09-06]. http://www.castlecoalition.org/report/.
[123] Buckley B. Bush Order Limits Federal Eminent Domain. Engineering News Record, 2006, 257(2):9.
[124]魏羽力.一种积极的土地重整手段——谈日本的“土地区画整理”方法.现代城市研究, 2003,(2):28-33.
[125]陈新民.德国公法学基础理论(下册).济南:山东人民出版社, 2001:405-530.
[126] Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson R.R. Co. 18 Wend. 9, 61. (N.Y. 1837).
[127] Pittsburg, Wheeling & Ky. R.R. v. Benwood Iron-Works. 8 S.E. 453, 467. (W.Va 1888).
[128] West River Bridge Co. v. Dix. 47 U.S. 546. (1848).
[129]陈新民.德国公法学基础理论(上册).济南:山东人民出版社, 2001:184.
[130]约翰·密尔.论自由.程崇华,译.北京:商务印书馆, 1956.
[131] Lopez A. Weighing and Reweighing Eminent Domain's Political Philosophies Post-Kelo. Wake Forest Law Review, 2006, 41(1):237.
[132] Benson B. The Mythology of Holdout as Justification for Eminent Domain and Public Provision of Roads. The Independent Review, 2005, 10(2):165-195.
[133] In Re Niagara Falls & Whirlpool Ry. Co. 15 N.E. 429. (N.Y. 1888).
[134]新华网.谁在滥用“公共利益”权力——探查土地流失“病灶”[EB/OL]. (2004-08-03) [2007-10-21]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2004-08/03/content_1699804.htm.
[135] Jackson v. N.Y. State Urban Development Corp. 494 N.E. 2d 429, 441. (N.Y. 1986).
[136] Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. 260 U.S. 393. (U.S. 1922).
[137] Kaiser Atena v. United States. 444 U.S. 164. (1979).
[138] Agins v. City of Tiburon. 447 U.S. 255. (1980).
[139] Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. 458 U.S. 419. (1982).
[140] First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles. 482 U.S. 304. (1987).
[141] Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. Debenedictis. 480 U.S. 470. (1987).
[142] Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. 483 U.S. 825. (1987).
[143] Dolan v. City of Tigard. 114 S.Ct. 2309. (1994).
[144] Palazzolo v. Rhode Island. 121 S. Ct. 2448. (2001).
[145] Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 125 S. Ct. 2074. (2005).
[146]哈特穆特·毛雷尔.行政法总论.高家伟,译.北京:法律出版社, 2000:667.
[147]李建良.行政法上损失补偿制度之基本体系.东吴法律学报, 1999, 11(2):37.
[148]刘志刚.财产征收的宪法界限.当代法学, 2006, 20(3):35-41.
[149] Merrill T W. The Economics of Public Use. Cornell Law Review, 1986,(72):61-118.
[150] Kelly J J. Urban Communities, Eminent Domain and the Socioeconomics of Just Compensation. St. John's Law Review, 2006, 80(3):923-988.
[151] Brion D J. The Meaning of the City: Urban Redevelopment and the Loss of Community. Indiana Law Review, 1992, 25:685-702.
[152] Farber D A. Public Choice and Just Compensation. Constitutional Comment, 1992, 9:279-285.
[153] Blume L, Rubinfeld D L. Compensation for Takings: An Economic Analysis. California Law Review, 1984, 72:569-619.
[154]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论.何怀宏,何包钢,廖申白,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1988:79.
[155] Treanor W M. The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process. Columbia Law Review, 1995:782-881.
[156] Farber D A. Economic Analysis and Just Compensation. International Review of Law and Economics, 1992, 12:114-130.
[157] United States v. Miller. 317 U.S. 369. (1943).
[158] Sacramento So. R.R. v. Heilbron. 156 Cal. 408. (1909).
[159]黄宗乐.土地征收补偿法上若干问题之研讨.台大法学论从, 21(1):72.
[160]王太高.土地征收制度比较研究.比较法研究, 2004,(6):16-30.
[161] Department of Water Resources v. Andresen. 193 Cal. App. 3d 1144. (1987).
[162] Allied Corp. v. Town of Camillus. 80 N.Y.2d 351. (1992).
[163] Gelineau J S. Valuation Dilemma: Establish Damages Where No Comparable Sales or Market Date Exists. ALI-ABA COURSE OF STUDY MATERIALS, ABA, 2005.
[164] Levinson D J. Framing Transactions in Constitutional Law. Yale Law Review, 2002,111:1311-1339.
[165] Serkin C. The Meaning of Value: Assessing Just Compensation for Regulatory Takings. Northwestern University Law Review, 2005, 99:677-742.
[166] Olson v. United States. 292 U.S. 246. (1934).
[167] United States v. Rands. 389 U.S. 121. (1967).
[168] Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington. 538 U.S. 216. (2003).
[169] United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land. 441 U.S. 506. (1979).
[170] Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States. 338 U.S. 1. (1949).
[171] United States v. 509 Acres of Land. 469 U.S. 24. (1984).
[172] United States v. 0.88 Acres of Land. 670 F. Supp. 210. (1987).
[173] Board of Commissioners v. Crawford. 731 So. 2d 508. (1999).
[174] Civil action for deprivation of rights, 42 U.S.C. 1983. (1996).
[175] Proceedings in vindication of civil rights, 42 U.S.C. 1988. (2000).
[176] United States v. Bodcaw Co. 440 U.S. 202. (1979).
[177] Litigation expenses, 42 U.S.C. 4654. (2000).
[178] Sperber J R. How Does Your Slate Stack Up? A National Survey of Selected Compensation Laws and Rules. ALI-ABA, EMINENT DOMAIN AND LAND VALUATION LITIGATION COURSE OF STUDY MATERIALS, 2005:641-649.
[179] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act. 42 U.S.C. 4601-4630. (2000).
[180]新华网.国土资源部2006年直接查处27起土地违法案件. (2007-02-28) [2007-12-26]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2007-02/28/content_5784623.htm.
[181]谢宗棠.对征地制度中土地补偿标准问题的研究——以甘肃省为例.西北民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2007,(2):36-42.
[182]关于《中华人民共和国土地管理法(修订草案)》的说明.第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二次会议, (1998-04-26).
[183]徐旭.沿海发达地区农地制度实证研究与思考[博士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2002.
[184]王克强.土地对农民基本生活保障效用的实证研究.四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2005,(3):5-11.
[185]新华网.天津市公布征地区片综合地价. (2007-06-11) [2007-10-23]. http://www.tj.xinhuanet.com/2007-06/11/content_10261465.htm.
[186]江媛,罗汀.房屋拆迁评估方法存在的技术问题及对策研究——以北京市为例.建筑经济, 2006,(12S):153-155.
[187] Baltimore v. Valsamakis. 916 A.2d 324. (Md. 2007).
[188] Sapero v. Baltimore. 920 A.2d 1061. (Md. 2007).
[189]江苏省苏州市中级人民法院执行局.对房屋拆迁执行工作的调查报告.人民司法, 2004,(3):16-17.
[190]黄锫坚.广州大学城征地拆迁纠纷.经济观察报, 2004-08-14.
[191]秦晖.地权问题的症结何在.经济观察报, 2006-08-27.
[192]刘守英.政府垄断土地一级市场真的一本万利吗.中国改革, 2005,(7):22-25.
[193]关于实行分税制财政管理体制的决定.国务院(93)国发第085号, (1993-12-15).
[194]祁兆珍.“看得见的手”与“看不见的手”握手.房地产市场, 2004,(8):9-11.
[195]李坤,刘艳.昆明大量征地荒芜多年近万失地农民生计堪忧.中国经济时报, 2007-01-19.
[196]陈小君.农村土地法律制度研究.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2004:5.
[197]王铁雄.集体土地所有权制度之完善—民法典制定中不容忽视的问题.法学, 2003,(2):41-47.
[2]国土资源部. 2005年中国国土资源公报[EB/OL]. (2006-04-29) [2007-12-03]. http://www.mlr.gov.cn/zwgk/tjxx/200710/t20071025_89743.htm.
[3]国土资源部. 2006年中国国土资源公报[EB/OL]. (2007-06-26) [2007-12-03]. http://www.mlr.gov.cn/zwgk/tjxx/200710/t20071025_89745.htm.
[4]王平.地根政治:全面剖析中国土地制度.中国改革, 2005,(7):16-20.
[5]罗昌平.湖南嘉禾拆迁事件.新京报, 2004-05-15.
[6]孙坷.甘肃清水株连拆迁事件调查.新西部, 2004, (7):8-11.
[7] Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. 80 U.S. 166. (1871).
[8]王赐江.房屋拆迁缘何导致“自焚事件”.人民网. (2003-09-22) [2006-10-24]. http://www.people.com.cn/GB/guandian/1034/2099796.html.
[9]黄章晋.将写入国史:宪法修正案里一个逗号的删改.中国青年报, 2004-03-15.
[10]司艳丽.论集体建设用地使用权流转的法律规制[博士学位论文].北京:中国政法大学, 2006.
[11]费杨生.土地违法“花样迭出”.中国证券报, 2006-06-12.
[12]物权法草案未对“公共利益”作出界定[EB/OL]. (2006-08-22) [2007-11-23]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2006-08/22/content_4993807.htm.
[13] K·茨威格特, H·克茨.比较法总论.潘汉典,米健,高鸿钧等,译.北京:法律出版社, 2003.
[14]大木雅夫.比较法.范愉,译.北京:法律出版社, 2006.
[15] Kelo v. City of New London. 125 S. Ct. 2655. (2005).
[16] Lameiras M. States Take Action to Limit Eminent Domain. 2007, 122(1):8-10.
[17]姜明安.行政法与行政诉讼法.北京:中国卓越出版公司, 1990.
[18]林来梵.论私人财产权的宪法保障.法学, 1999,(3):14-21.
[19]林来梵.针对国家享有的财产权——从比较法角度的一个考察.法商研究, 2003,(1):54-62.
[20]王太高.行政补偿制度研究[博士学位论文].苏州:苏州大学, 2003.
[21]蒲杰,余斌.房屋拆迁权的滥用与预防.现代法学, 2002, 24(4):143-146.
[22]费安玲.私权理念与城市私房拆迁的立法.政法论坛, 2004, 22(5):40-49.
[23]张曙光.征地拆迁案的法律经济分析.中国土地, 2004,(5):12-16.
[24]张韵声.征用补偿制度比较研究[博士学位论文].北京:对外经济贸易大学, 2006.
[25]王成栋,江利红.行政征用权与公民财产权的界限——公共利益.政法论坛, 2003,
[26]李累.美国宪法上的财产征用制度[博士学位论文].北京:中国人民大学, 1999.
[27]李累.论法律对财产权的限制──兼论我国宪法财产权规范体系的缺陷及其克服.法制与社会发展, 2002,(2):41-53.
[28]李累,矫波.美国联邦最高法院财产权案件裁决意见的历史演变及其启示.学术研究, 2002,(2):79-83.
[29]张千帆.“公共利益”是什么.法学论坛, 2005, 20(1):28-31.
[30]张千帆.“公共利益”的困境与出路.中国法学, 2005,(5):36-45.
[31] Berman v. Parker. 348 U.S. 26. (1954).
[32] Gallagher E F. Breaking New Ground: Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development. Fordham Law Review, 2005, 73(4):1837-1873.
[33] Corey J W. The Struggle over the Public Use Clause: Survey of Holdings and Trends, 1986-2003. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 2004, 39(2):251-274.
[34] Lopez E J, Totah S M. Kelo and Its Discontents: The Worst (or Best?) Thing to Happen to Property Rights. Independent Review, 2007, 11(3):397.
[35] D'Orazio G. Taking Private Property to Build an Urban Sports Arena: A Valid Exercise of Eminent Domain Powers? Albany Law Review, 2007, 69(4):1135-1167.
[36] Sandefur T. Don't Mess with Property Rights in Texas. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 2006, 41(2):227-252.
[37] Cohen C. Eminent Domain after Kelo v. City of New London. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2006, 29(2):491-568.
[38] Bell A, Parchomovsky G. The Useless of Public Use. Columbia Law Review, 2006, 106(6):1412-1449.
[39] Esptein R A. Takings: Private Property and the Right of Eminent Domain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985:7-18, 57-62, 107-125.
[40]谢哲胜.财产法专题研究(2).北京:人民大学出版社, 2005:156-157.
[41]李蕊.国外土地征收制度考察研究——以德、美两国为重点考察对象.重庆社会科学, 2005,(3):69-74.
[42] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. 112 S. Ct. 2886. (U. S. 1992).
[43]林来梵.美国宪法判例中的财产权保护——以lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council为焦点.浙江社会科学, 2003,(5):76-83.
[44] Vickory F A, Diskin B A. Advances in Private Property Protection Rights: The States in the Vanguard. American Business Law Journal, 1997, 34(4):563-607.
[45] United States v. Causby. 328 U.S. 258. (1946).
[46] Kahn R. Inverse Condemnation and the Highway Cases: Compensation for Abutting Landowners. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2004, 22(3):563-591.
[47]王晓明.城市化进程中失地农民权益问题研究[硕士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2003.
[48]朱明芬.浙江失地农民利益保障现状调查与对策.中国农村经济, 2003,(3):65-70.
[49]张千帆.“公正补偿”与征收权的宪法限制.法学研究, 2005,(2):25-37.
[50]邢明娟.我国集体农用地转为城市建设用地问题研究[硕士学位论文].北京:清华大学, 2005.
[51]倪瑛,周文,唐兵.对农地征用制度的经济学思考.经济问题探索, 2006,(8):62-65.
[52]钱忠好.土地征用:均衡与非均衡——对现行中国土地征用制度的经济分析.管理世界, 2004,(12):50-59.
[53]强真.农地征收过程中土地价格关系研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国农业大学, 2005.
[54]吕彦彬.涉县土地征用中的土地收益分配研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国农业大学, 2003.
[55]闵一峰.城市房屋拆迁补偿制度的经济学研究[博士学位论文].南京:南京农业大学, 2005.
[56]罗丹,严瑞珍,陈洁.不同农村土地非农化模式的利益分配机制比较研究.管理世界, 2004,(9):87-96.
[57]任浩,郝晋珉.剪刀差对农地价格的影响.中国土地科学, 2003,(3):38-43.
[58]王小映,贺明,玉高永.我国农地转用中的土地收益分配实证研究——基于昆山、桐城、新都三地的抽样调查分析.管理世界, 2006,(5):62-68.
[59]华元春,徐忠国,赵哲远.“征地区片价”在浙江的变革:起始及现状与未来.国土资源科技管理, 2006,(6):20-23.
[60]段文技.征地补偿标准的革新——区片综合地价实证分析.农业技术经济, 2006,(6):65-69.
[61] Michelman F I. Property, Utility, and Fairness: Commnets on the Ethic Foundation of "Just Compensation" Law. Harvard Law Review, 1967, 80(6):1165-1260.
[62] Fischel W E. The Political Economy of Just Compensation: Lessons from the Military Draft for the Takings Issue. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1996, 20(1):23-63.
[63] Esposto F G. The Political Economy of Taking and Just Compensation. Public Choice, 1996, 89:267-282.
[64] Heller M A, Krier J E. Deterrence and Distribution in the Law of Takings. Harvard Law Review, 1999, 112(5):997-1025.
[65] Rogers T A. A Dubious Development: Tax Increment Financing and Economically Motivated Condemnation. Review of Litigation, 1998, 17(1):145-180.
[66] Knepper D. Eliminating the Federal Subsidy in Kelo: Restricting the Availability of Tax-Exempt Financing for Redevelopment Projects. Georgetown Law Journal, 2006, 94(5):1635-1665.
[67] Beck-Dudley C L, Macdonald J E. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Takings, and the Search for the Common Good. American Business Law Journal, 1995, 33(2):153-178.
[68]雷震,邢祖礼.农村土地征用中的价格博弈分析.财经科学, 2006,(8):97-103.
[69]柯小兵,何高潮.从三层博弈关系看土地征收制度改革——基于某大学城征地案例的分析.中国土地科学, 2006, 20(3):14-18.
[70]汪晖.城市化进程中的土地制度研究[博士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2002.
[71]陈会广.经济发展中土地非农化的制度响应与政府征用绩效研究[硕士学位论文].南京:南京农业大学, 2004.
[72] Innes R. The Economics of Takings and Compensation When Land and Its Public Use Value Are in Private Hands. Land Economics, 2000, 76(2):195-212.
[73]程洁.土地征收征用中的程序失范与重构.法学研究, 2006,(1):62-78.
[74]李晓妹.美国蒙大拿州土地征收制度.中国土地, 2003,(9):42-45.
[75]王正立,刘丽.国外土地征用补偿程序及纠纷解决.国土资源情报, 2004,(1):6-8.
[76]胡献旁.我国城市房屋拆迁的几个法律问题研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国政法大学, 2004.
[77]林乐.土地征用过程与被征地农民的应对行为实证研究[硕士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2005.
[78]王文英.农村土地征收行政法律问题研究[硕士学位论文].北京:中国政法大学, 2004.
[79]张林江.围绕农村土地的权力博弈[博士学位论文].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院, 2003.
[80]孔善广.地方政府为何变坏.新青年·权衡, 2006,(9):21-25.
[81]蒋省三,刘守英.土地解密.财经, 2006,(4):23-35.
[82]梁慧星.民法解释学.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1995:190-192.
[83]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论.陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆, 2003:200-223.
[84]梁慧星.民法解释学.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 1995:214.
[85]中国社会科学院法学研究所.法律辞典.北京:法律出版社, 2003.
[86]梁慧星.民法总论.北京:法律出版社, 2001:98.
[87] Garner B A, eds. Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004.
[88]李伟.论准征收的构成要件.哈尔滨工业大学学报社会科学版, 2007,(6):67-70.
[89]姜明安.七问征收补偿,我们离合理还有多远.方圆法治, 2007,(17):5-7.
[90]周枬.罗马法原论(上).北京:商务印书馆, 2002:327.
[91]洛克.政府论[M/Ol].瞿菊农,叶启芳,译.北京:商务印书馆, 1982[2007-11-26].http://www.worldpublaw.sdu.edu.cn/cms/plus/view.php?aid=126.
[92]黑格尔.法哲学原理.范扬,张企泰,译.北京:商务印书馆, 1982:50-54.
[93]卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论.王晓晔等,译.北京:法律出版社, 2003:86-88.
[94]狄骥.宪法学教程.王文利,译.沈阳:春风文艺出版社, 1999:6.
[95] Grotius H. De Jure Belli Ac Pacis. Kelsey,译. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1925:219.
[96] Pufendorf S v. De Officio Hominis Et Civis Juxta Legem Naturalem. Silverthorne,译. New York: Cambridge Univercity Press, 1991:166-167.
[97] Posner R A. Economics, Politics, and the Reading of Statutes and the Constitution. University of Chicago Law Review, 1982, 49:243-265.
[98] Posner R A. Economic Analysis of Law.北京: CITIC Publishing House: Aspen Publishers, Inc, 2003:40-41.
[99] Polinsky M A. Resolving Nuisance Disputes: The Simple Economics of Injunctive and Damage Remedies. Stanford Law Review, 1980, 32:1075-1112.
[100]郭洁.土地征用若干民事法律问题研究.社会科学辑刊, 2001,(2):59-64.
[101]陈新民.中国行政法学原理.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2002:42-46.
[102]余凌云.论行政法上的比例原则[EB/OL]. (2003-05-28) [2007-09-21]. http://www.chinalawedu.com/news/2003_11%5C5%5C1133459192.htm.
[103]黄学贤.行政法中的比例原则简论.苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2001,(1):42-45.
[104] Sales N A. Classical Republicanism and the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" Requirement. Duke Law Journal, 1999, 49:339-350.
[105] Wood G S. The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787. University of North Carolina Press, 1969:52.
[106] Treanor W M. The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process. Columbia Law Review, 1995, 95:782-821.
[107] Armstrong v. United States. 364 U.S. 40, 49. (1960).
[108] Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. 483 U.S. 104. (1978).
[109]曼瑟尔·奥尔森.集体行动的逻辑.陈郁,译.上海:三联书店, 1995:48.
[110] Macey J R. Promoting Public Regarding Legislation through Statutory Interpretation; a Interest Group Model. Columbia Law Review, 1986, 86:223-227.
[111]戈登·塔洛克.寻租:对寻租活动的经济学分析.成都:西南财经大学出版社, 1999:64.
[112] Kochan D J. 'Public Use' and the Independent Judiciary: Condemnation in an Interest-Group Perspective. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 1998, 3(1):49-116.
[113] Abraham Bell G P. Taking Compensation Private. Stanford Law Review, 2007, 59(4):871-906.
[114]黄祖辉,汪晖.非公共利益性质的征地行为与土地发展权补偿.经济研究, 2002, 5:66-71.
[115]张文显.法理学.北京:高等教育出版社, 1999:341.
[116] Kohl v. United States. 91 U.S. 367. (1875).
[117] Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. 467 U.S. 229. (1984).
[118] Hairston v. Danville & Western Railway Co. 208 U.S. 598. (1908).
[119] United States v. Carolene Products Co. 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234. (1938).
[120] Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit. 304 N.W.2d 455. (Mich 1981).
[121] Wayne County v. Hathcock. 684 N.W.2d 765. (Mich 2004).
[122] Berliner D. Public Power, Private Gain: A Five Year, State-by-State Report Examining the Abuse of Eminent Domain[EB/OL]. Institute for Justice. (2003-11-23) [2007--09-06]. http://www.castlecoalition.org/report/.
[123] Buckley B. Bush Order Limits Federal Eminent Domain. Engineering News Record, 2006, 257(2):9.
[124]魏羽力.一种积极的土地重整手段——谈日本的“土地区画整理”方法.现代城市研究, 2003,(2):28-33.
[125]陈新民.德国公法学基础理论(下册).济南:山东人民出版社, 2001:405-530.
[126] Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson R.R. Co. 18 Wend. 9, 61. (N.Y. 1837).
[127] Pittsburg, Wheeling & Ky. R.R. v. Benwood Iron-Works. 8 S.E. 453, 467. (W.Va 1888).
[128] West River Bridge Co. v. Dix. 47 U.S. 546. (1848).
[129]陈新民.德国公法学基础理论(上册).济南:山东人民出版社, 2001:184.
[130]约翰·密尔.论自由.程崇华,译.北京:商务印书馆, 1956.
[131] Lopez A. Weighing and Reweighing Eminent Domain's Political Philosophies Post-Kelo. Wake Forest Law Review, 2006, 41(1):237.
[132] Benson B. The Mythology of Holdout as Justification for Eminent Domain and Public Provision of Roads. The Independent Review, 2005, 10(2):165-195.
[133] In Re Niagara Falls & Whirlpool Ry. Co. 15 N.E. 429. (N.Y. 1888).
[134]新华网.谁在滥用“公共利益”权力——探查土地流失“病灶”[EB/OL]. (2004-08-03) [2007-10-21]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2004-08/03/content_1699804.htm.
[135] Jackson v. N.Y. State Urban Development Corp. 494 N.E. 2d 429, 441. (N.Y. 1986).
[136] Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. 260 U.S. 393. (U.S. 1922).
[137] Kaiser Atena v. United States. 444 U.S. 164. (1979).
[138] Agins v. City of Tiburon. 447 U.S. 255. (1980).
[139] Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. 458 U.S. 419. (1982).
[140] First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles. 482 U.S. 304. (1987).
[141] Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. Debenedictis. 480 U.S. 470. (1987).
[142] Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. 483 U.S. 825. (1987).
[143] Dolan v. City of Tigard. 114 S.Ct. 2309. (1994).
[144] Palazzolo v. Rhode Island. 121 S. Ct. 2448. (2001).
[145] Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 125 S. Ct. 2074. (2005).
[146]哈特穆特·毛雷尔.行政法总论.高家伟,译.北京:法律出版社, 2000:667.
[147]李建良.行政法上损失补偿制度之基本体系.东吴法律学报, 1999, 11(2):37.
[148]刘志刚.财产征收的宪法界限.当代法学, 2006, 20(3):35-41.
[149] Merrill T W. The Economics of Public Use. Cornell Law Review, 1986,(72):61-118.
[150] Kelly J J. Urban Communities, Eminent Domain and the Socioeconomics of Just Compensation. St. John's Law Review, 2006, 80(3):923-988.
[151] Brion D J. The Meaning of the City: Urban Redevelopment and the Loss of Community. Indiana Law Review, 1992, 25:685-702.
[152] Farber D A. Public Choice and Just Compensation. Constitutional Comment, 1992, 9:279-285.
[153] Blume L, Rubinfeld D L. Compensation for Takings: An Economic Analysis. California Law Review, 1984, 72:569-619.
[154]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论.何怀宏,何包钢,廖申白,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1988:79.
[155] Treanor W M. The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process. Columbia Law Review, 1995:782-881.
[156] Farber D A. Economic Analysis and Just Compensation. International Review of Law and Economics, 1992, 12:114-130.
[157] United States v. Miller. 317 U.S. 369. (1943).
[158] Sacramento So. R.R. v. Heilbron. 156 Cal. 408. (1909).
[159]黄宗乐.土地征收补偿法上若干问题之研讨.台大法学论从, 21(1):72.
[160]王太高.土地征收制度比较研究.比较法研究, 2004,(6):16-30.
[161] Department of Water Resources v. Andresen. 193 Cal. App. 3d 1144. (1987).
[162] Allied Corp. v. Town of Camillus. 80 N.Y.2d 351. (1992).
[163] Gelineau J S. Valuation Dilemma: Establish Damages Where No Comparable Sales or Market Date Exists. ALI-ABA COURSE OF STUDY MATERIALS, ABA, 2005.
[164] Levinson D J. Framing Transactions in Constitutional Law. Yale Law Review, 2002,111:1311-1339.
[165] Serkin C. The Meaning of Value: Assessing Just Compensation for Regulatory Takings. Northwestern University Law Review, 2005, 99:677-742.
[166] Olson v. United States. 292 U.S. 246. (1934).
[167] United States v. Rands. 389 U.S. 121. (1967).
[168] Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington. 538 U.S. 216. (2003).
[169] United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land. 441 U.S. 506. (1979).
[170] Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States. 338 U.S. 1. (1949).
[171] United States v. 509 Acres of Land. 469 U.S. 24. (1984).
[172] United States v. 0.88 Acres of Land. 670 F. Supp. 210. (1987).
[173] Board of Commissioners v. Crawford. 731 So. 2d 508. (1999).
[174] Civil action for deprivation of rights, 42 U.S.C. 1983. (1996).
[175] Proceedings in vindication of civil rights, 42 U.S.C. 1988. (2000).
[176] United States v. Bodcaw Co. 440 U.S. 202. (1979).
[177] Litigation expenses, 42 U.S.C. 4654. (2000).
[178] Sperber J R. How Does Your Slate Stack Up? A National Survey of Selected Compensation Laws and Rules. ALI-ABA, EMINENT DOMAIN AND LAND VALUATION LITIGATION COURSE OF STUDY MATERIALS, 2005:641-649.
[179] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act. 42 U.S.C. 4601-4630. (2000).
[180]新华网.国土资源部2006年直接查处27起土地违法案件. (2007-02-28) [2007-12-26]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2007-02/28/content_5784623.htm.
[181]谢宗棠.对征地制度中土地补偿标准问题的研究——以甘肃省为例.西北民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2007,(2):36-42.
[182]关于《中华人民共和国土地管理法(修订草案)》的说明.第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二次会议, (1998-04-26).
[183]徐旭.沿海发达地区农地制度实证研究与思考[博士学位论文].杭州:浙江大学, 2002.
[184]王克强.土地对农民基本生活保障效用的实证研究.四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2005,(3):5-11.
[185]新华网.天津市公布征地区片综合地价. (2007-06-11) [2007-10-23]. http://www.tj.xinhuanet.com/2007-06/11/content_10261465.htm.
[186]江媛,罗汀.房屋拆迁评估方法存在的技术问题及对策研究——以北京市为例.建筑经济, 2006,(12S):153-155.
[187] Baltimore v. Valsamakis. 916 A.2d 324. (Md. 2007).
[188] Sapero v. Baltimore. 920 A.2d 1061. (Md. 2007).
[189]江苏省苏州市中级人民法院执行局.对房屋拆迁执行工作的调查报告.人民司法, 2004,(3):16-17.
[190]黄锫坚.广州大学城征地拆迁纠纷.经济观察报, 2004-08-14.
[191]秦晖.地权问题的症结何在.经济观察报, 2006-08-27.
[192]刘守英.政府垄断土地一级市场真的一本万利吗.中国改革, 2005,(7):22-25.
[193]关于实行分税制财政管理体制的决定.国务院(93)国发第085号, (1993-12-15).
[194]祁兆珍.“看得见的手”与“看不见的手”握手.房地产市场, 2004,(8):9-11.
[195]李坤,刘艳.昆明大量征地荒芜多年近万失地农民生计堪忧.中国经济时报, 2007-01-19.
[196]陈小君.农村土地法律制度研究.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2004:5.
[197]王铁雄.集体土地所有权制度之完善—民法典制定中不容忽视的问题.法学, 2003,(2):41-47.