| 226 | 3 | 5 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
历史建筑在规范体系的视域下具有非常特殊的法律地位，其所肩负的实现群体性文化权利的社会功能同客观公共利益相互关联。历史建筑自身的特征肌理造就了公私利益冲突的现实困局，其在结果层面导致了公益优位和私益受限，在规范层面则衍化出私权主体的法定义务。对公私利益冲突的制度更多地体现为外在趋近的框架下如何避免私权利益的核心内容遭受不合比例的损害。对此，有必要引入经济上合理性学说。此种概念可以被描述为维持历史建筑的费用支出同由此可能带来的各类收益之间所构成的恰当比例关系。对于支出和收益之间的比例关系需要结合客观情势加以识别判断。为了最大程度地勾勒出经济上合理性的真实面貌，还需要采用类型化的思维方法对于可转让性、可使用性、保有期限、财力状况、主观状态、评估单元等因素加以综合权衡。北京市的地方性立法针对化解公私利益冲突的制度调和并未形成有效的规范供给，以《北京市历史建筑保护利用管理办法(试行)》(征求意见稿)的制定为契机来填补上述漏洞是一条较为可行的解决路径。
Abstract：Historical architecture has a very special legal status under the perspective of normative system, and its social function of realizing group cultural rights is interrelated with the objective public interest. The characteristic texture of historical architecture itself has created the realistic dilemma of conflict between public and private interests, which has led to the superiority of public interest and limitation of private rights at result level, and evolved legal obligations of private subject at normative level. The institutional reconciliation of conflict between public and private interests is more reflected in how to avoid disproportionate damage to the core content of private interest under the framework of external approach. It is necessary to introduce the theory of economic rationality. This concept can be described as the appropriate proportion of cost of maintaining historical architecture to various benefits that may arise therefrom. The proportion between expenditure and income needs to be identified and judged in combination with objective conditions. In order to outline the real appearance of economic rationality to the greatest extent, it is also necessary to adopt typed thinking methods to comprehensively balance transferability, usability, retention period, financial status, subjective status, evaluation unit and other factors. The local legislation in Beijing has not effectively formed regulative supply for institutional reconciliation of resolving conflict between public and private interests. It is a more feasible way to fill the legal loophole in the above with the formulation of Administrative Measures for Protection and Utilization of Historical Architecture in Beijing(Implementation on Trial).
[1] VICTOR H.Pamphlets for the preservation of heritage:war against the wreckers(1834)ed[M].Paris:Archangel Monitaure,2006.
[2] 张心.城市遗产保护的人本视角研究[D].济南：山东大学，2016.ZHANG X.Research on protection of urban heritage form human-oriented perspective[D].Jinan:Shandong University,2016.(in Chinese)
[3] 刘瑛楠.中国建筑遗产文化阐释体系研究[D].北京：中央美术学院，2020.LIU Y N.Research on cultural interpretation system of Chinese architectural heritage[D].Beijing:Central Academy of Fine Art,2020.(in Chinese)
[4] 王云霞.文化遗产法教程[M].北京：商务印书馆，2012.WANG Y X.Tutorial on cultural heritage law[M].Beijing:Commercial Press,2012.(in Chinese)
[5] 周海涛.从阐释民族精神到坚定文化自信—论文化遗产保护与知识生产意义[J].档案管理，2022(4):65-70.ZHOU H T.From interpretation of national spirit to strengthening of cultural confidence:on protection of cultural heritage and significance of knowledge production[J].Archives Management,2022(4):65-70.(in Chinese)
[6] 珍妮特·布莱克.国际文化遗产法[M].程乐，袁誉畅，谢菲，梁雪，译.北京：中国民主法制出版社，2021.BLAKE J.International cultural heritage law[M].CHENG L,YUAN Y C,XIE F,LIANG X.translator.Beijing:China Democracy and Legal System Press,2021.(in Chinese)
[7] 杨凡.公民文化权利的基本义理[J].云南大学学报(法学版),2016,29(6):22-23.YANG F.Basic meaning of citizens’cultural rights[J].Journal of Yunnan University (Law Edition),2016,29(6):22-23.(in Chinese)
[8] 杨利华.从应然权利到实然权利：文化权利的著作权法保障机制研究[J].比较法研究，2021(4):128-142.YANG L H.From proper rights to real rights:research on guarantee mechanism of copyright law of cultural rights[J].Journal of Comparative Law,2021(4):128-142.(in Chinese)
[9] 宋慧献.论文化权利的构成与属性[J].中国政法大学学报，2017(5):5-23,158.SONG H X.On composition and attribute of cultural rights[J].Journal of China University of Political Science and Law,2017(5):5-23,158.(in Chinese)
[10] 莫纪宏.论文化权利的宪法保护[J].法学论坛，2012,27(1):20-25.MO J H.On constitutional protection of cultural rights[J].Law Forum,2012,27(1):20-25.(in Chinese)
[11] 王丽娜.文化权利法律保障研究[J].中国政法大学学报，2018(3):61-74.WANG L N.Research on legal protection of cultural rights[J].Journal of China University of Political Science and Law,2018(3):61-74.(in Chinese)
[12] KLOEPFER M.Heritage protection and environmental protection:legal restriction and conflict between law of spatial binding protection of cultural property and law of environment and plan[M].Berlin:Duncker & Humblot Press,2012.
[13] 梁上上.公共利益与利益衡量[J].政法论坛，2016,34(6):3-17.LIANG S S.Public interest and interest measurement[J].Tribune of Political Science and Law,2016,34(6):3-17.(in Chinese)
[14] 范文清.土地征收与比例原则—评释字第732号解释[J].月旦裁判时报，2016,50:61-62.FAN W Q.Land expropriation and principle of proportion:review of No.732 legal explanation[J].Court Case Times,2016,50:61-62.(in Chinese)
[15] JOSEF I.Common interests and state responsibilities in constitutional state[A]//Josef I,Paul K.Handbook of national law of federal republic of Germany[C].Heidelberg:C.F.Müller Press,1988:134.
[16] 王韻茹.国家对文化保存与维护的宪法义务——以文化资产保存法为观察[J].高大法学论丛，2021,1:32-33.WANG Y R.Constitutional duty of state to preserve and maintain culture:observation on preservation law of cultural assets[J].Law Journal of Kaohsiung University,2021,1:32-33.(in Chinese)
[17] 任超.德国文化遗产法律保护的规范体系、发展趋势和借鉴价值[J].河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2021,46(1):142-151.REN C.Regulative system,development trend and reference value of legal protection of cultural heritage in Germany[J].Journal of Hebei University(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition),2021,46(1):142-151.(in Chinese)
[18] 梁上上.异质利益衡量的公度性难题及其求解—以法律适用为场域展开[J].政法论坛，2014,32(4):3-19.LIANG S S.Problem of incommensurability of measurement of heterogeneous interest and resolution:taking law application as discussion scope[J].Tribune of Political Science and Law,2014,32(4):3-19.(in Chinese)
[19] German Federal Constitutional Court.The rulings of the German federal constitutional court:volume 31[M].Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck Press,1972.
[20] German Federal Constitutional Court.The rulings of the German federal constitutional court:volume 102[M].Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck Press,2001.
[21] German Federal Constitutional Court.The rulings of the German federal constitutional court:volume 99[M].Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck Press,1999.
[22] European Court of Human Rights.Judgment of March 29,2011:prohibition of construction in former Jewish cemeteries[J].New Journal of Administrative Law,2012,6:353-355.
[23] Sachsen-Anhalt High Administrative Court.Judgement of February 18,2015-2 L 175/13[EB/OL].(2015- 02- 18)[2023- 01- 05].https://openjur.de/u/893027.html.
[24] HARTLEB T,WURSTER J H.Conservation and preservation of cultural heritage[A]//Hoppenberg M,Witt S.Handbook of public architectural law[C].Munich:C.H.Beck Press,2015:63-64.
[25] Augsburg Administrative Court,Judgement of November14,2013- Au5K12,758[EB/OL].(2013- 11- 14)[2023- 01- 05].https://openjur.de/u/679053.html.
[26] Sachsen-Anhalt High Administrative Court.Judgment ofAugust 06,2012- 2L6/10:refusing approval for protecting historical sites[J].Journal of German and International Construction and Public Procurement Law,2012,8:795-796.
[27] Mecklenburg-Vorpommern High Administrative Court.Judgement of March 18,2009- 3 L 503/04[EB/OL].(2009- 03- 18)[2023- 01- 05].https://openjur.de/u/342487.html.
[28] FUESSER K,KREUTER S.Demolition permits in cultural heritage law in new federal states[J].State and Local Administration,2008,3:102,106-107.
[29] DIETER M,Questions on rationality in permission procedure of cultural heritage law[J].Bavarian Administrative Gazette,2013,9:257-258.
[30] DIETER M,MIETH S,SPENNEMANN J.Rationality in cultural heritage law:property fundamental law and protection of cultural heritage in practice[M].Stuttgart:Kohlhammer Press,2014.
[31] SEEHAUSEN K.Principles of rationality in legal protection of cultural heritage:summary of juris-prudence for practice[J].The Experts,2006,12:367,372.
[32] Nordrhein-Westfalen High Administrative Court.Judgement of September 13,2013-10A1069/12[EB/OL].(2013- 09- 13)[2023- 01- 05].https://openjur.de/u/662974.html.
[33] HAASS B.Private interests and economic calculations for protection of cultural heritage[J].New Journal of Administrative Law,2002,9:1054-1055.
[34] Munich Administrative Court.Judgment of September 4,2012- 2 ZB 11.587[EB/OL].(2012- 09- 04)[2023- 01- 05].https://openjur.de/u/542415.html.
[35] Sachsen High Administrative Court.Judgment of January 13,2015- 1 B 117/14[EB/OL].(2015- 01- 13)[2023- 01- 05].https://www.justiz.sachsen.de/ovgentschweb/documents/14B117.B01.doc.
[36] Rheinland-Pfalz High Administrative Court.Judgement of November 12,2009- 1A11222/09[J].Hessen State and Local Law Journal,2010,2:76.
[37] Nordrhein-Westfalen High Administrative Court.Judgementof March 20,2009- 10A1406/08[J].Public Administration,2009,16:685-686.
[38] Berlin Brandenburg High Administrative Court.Judgment of September 17,2008- 2B3.06:demolition of a protected cultural heritage Weberhaus[J].National and Local Administration,2008,12:567,569.
[39] Sachsen High Administrative Court.Judgement of June 10,2010- 1B818/06[EB/OL].(2010- 06- 10)[2023- 01- 05].https://www.justiz.sachsen.de/ovgentschweb/documents/06B818.pdf.
[40] HAUTH M.On(Non-) rationality of preserving historical architecture for economic reasons[J].Journal for Total Public and Civil Construction Law,2013,2:178,180.
[41] DAVYDOV D.Heritage protection and ownership guarantee in German and Russianlaw[D].Bonn:Bonn University,2010.
[42] German Federal Constitutional Court.Judgment of April 14,2010:rationality of preservation of protectedcultural heritage[J].New Administrative Law Journal,2010,15:957-958.
[43] BAUMGART D.Law on protection of cultural heritage in Niedersachsen from perspective of property guarantee[M].Frankfurt:Peter LangPress,2010.
基本信息:
DOI：10.19740/j.2096-9872.2023.04.03
中图分类号:TU-87;D922.16
引用信息:
[1]任超,杨雨晴.历史建筑法律保护中的利益冲突与制度调和[J].北京建筑大学学报,2023,39(04):17-26.DOI:10.19740/j.2096-9872.2023.04.03.
基金信息:
教育部人文社会科学研究规划青年基金项目(22YJCZH140)