Volume 38 Issue 1
Feb.  2022
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
YU Wen-qing. The Constitutional Meanings of the Right of Habitation Norms in the Civil Code[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 38(1): 103-110. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2021110011
Citation: YU Wen-qing. The Constitutional Meanings of the Right of Habitation Norms in the Civil Code[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 38(1): 103-110. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2021110011

The Constitutional Meanings of the Right of Habitation Norms in the Civil Code

doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2021110011
  • Received Date: 2021-11-02
    Available Online: 2022-01-24
  • Publish Date: 2022-02-12
  • The right of habitation stipulated in the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China contains strong constitutional elements. The principle of socialism and the basic right clauses articulated in the Constitution are fundamental values for protections of the right of habitation in civil law and constitute the background norms of interpretation of the right of habitation in civil law. According to the principle of constitution, such as disposition of basic rights, restriction of basic rights and conflict of basic rights, the disposition of right of habitation is subject to certain restriction and the protection of constitution’s “weakness” nature. In dealing with civil cases in which citizens’ right of habitation conflicts with other citizens’ rights and administrative cases in which the state expropriates and requisitions property based on public interests, the court should cultivate the constitution consciousness at the macro level, and distinguish the different positions of constitutional validity in “judgment basis” and “judgment reason” at the micro level, so as to accurately explain and guide the application of the civil law residence right norms based on the principle of constitutional fundamental rights.

     

  • loading
  • [1]
    凯斯·孙斯坦. 设计民主: 论宪法的作用[M]. 金朝武, 刘会春, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2006.
    [2]
    LECKIE S. The right to housing [J]. Newsletter, 1987(20):10-25.
    [3]
    张力. 宪法性居住权在我国的民法实现途径−面向土地的“公产”取向[J]. 河北法学,2010,28(6):2-10.
    [4]
    聂鑫. 如何保障住房权?−比较宪法的案例思考[J]. 比较法研究,2013(4):116-122.
    [5]
    Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Council, 1985 2 Supp SCR 51.
    [6]
    李来孺. 印度编纂民法典的宪法目标为何未能实现?[J]. 清华法学,2020,14(1):140-157.
    [7]
    孙中山. 孙中山选集[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 1981.
    [8]
    金俭. 中国住宅法研究[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2004.
    [9]
    GOMES M & THIELE B. Housing rights are human rights [J]. Human Rights, 2005, 32(3):2-24.
    [10]
    张翔. 民法人格权规范的宪法意涵[J]. 法制与社会发展,2020,26(4):119-132.
    [11]
    张翔. 宪法与部门法的三重关系[J]. 中国法律评论,2019(1):26-33.
    [12]
    苏永钦. 走进新世纪的私法自治[M]. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2002.
    [13]
    陈新民. 德国公法学基础理论[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2010.
    [14]
    王文东. 恩格斯的居住正义思想及其启示[J]. 哲学动态,2010(5):14-19.
    [15]
    优士丁尼. 法学阶梯[M]. 徐国栋, 译. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 1999.
    [16]
    童彬. 法国财产权体系之源与流[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2014.
    [17]
    申卫星. 《民法典》居住权制度的体系展开[J]. 吉林大学社会科学学报,2021,61(3):51-61.
    [18]
    张翔. 基本权利限制问题的思考框架[J]. 法学家,2008(1):134-139. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0221.2008.01.031
    [19]
    朱应平. 论宪法保障民生的路径[J]. 江淮论坛,2012(1):101-109. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-862X.2012.01.016
    [20]
    吴延溢. 居住自由权的构造逻辑及其法理阈限[J]. 南通大学学报(社会科学版),2020,36(1):66-73.
    [21]
    苏永钦. 民法典的时代意义——对中国内地民法典草案的大方向提几点看法[C]//苏永钦. 民事立法与公私法的接轨. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005: 57-58.
    [22]
    杜强强. 合宪性解释在我国法院的实践[J]. 法学研究,2016,38(1):107-125.
    [23]
    刘树德. “裁判依据”与“裁判理由”的法理之辨及其实践样态−以裁判效力为中心的考察[J]. 法治现代化研究,2020,4(3):123-138.
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (323) PDF downloads(60) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return