论“公共利益”的界定模式
The Enumerative Legislation’s Mode on Public Good
唐忠民;温泽彬
【摘要】
宪法关于“公共利益”的规定，需要在国家权力运行活动中具体化。如何将“公共利益”具体化呢？学界和实务界提出了三种基本模式。第一种是人大以“一事一议”方式界定“公共利益”；第二种是由司法承担对“公共利益”的最终界定；第三种是人大以列举式立法模式将“公共利益”具体化、固置化。第一种模式正确认识到界定“公共利益”属于权力机关的权限，但具体方式却不可行；第二种司法决定模式既缺乏实质合法性，又没有技术可行性；第三种模式在立法上虽有一定困难，但也有其他国家和地区成功经验可资，是实现
宪法“公共利益”规定对公民权利保护和对国家权力制约的惟一现实可行之路。要在国家权力运行上界定“公共利益”，还必须解决目前我国“公共利益”泛化掩盖下的许多具体矛盾。
As for the definition of“public good”in constitutional law , we need to specify it in the operation of national authority. So how to define “public good, there are mainly three modes in the field of theory and practice. The first is that people’s congress define what is “public good” according to certain issues; the second is the courts undertake the final task of interpreting and deciding what is“public good”; the third is The National People’s Congress specifies it through enumerating it by legislation. In terms of the first approach, even though it falls into the power of legislature, the specific methods are not recommendable. As for the second approach, it lacks the substantive legitimacy and technical workability. Even though certain problem exists for the final approach , the successful practices in other countries and regions which deserve our more attention , which , as far as we are concerned, is the sole approach we can adopt to further safeguarding individual rights and constraint national authority. And the article thinks that a series of problems need to be solved before defining“public good”.
【关键词】公共利益；普通法律；列举式；立法模式
public good；legislation；The Enumeration；Legislation’s Mode
【全文】
2004年现行
宪法第四次修改之后，
宪法明确规定了国家对农村集体土地的征收征用和对公民的私有财产的征收征用，都必须是“为了公共利益的需要”。由于
宪法这一规范具有原则性，在具体解释时易生歧义，各地国家机关特别是政府将“公共利益”作随意扩张从而以“公共利益”名义侵犯集体和个人合法财产权的行为多有发生。能否在普通法律中或在国家权力运行活动中对“公共利益”予以具体化、固置化，成为社会各界特别是法学理论和法律实务界关注的热点问题之一。笔者之一此前文章中对这一问题有所涉及，拜读了法学界同仁新近文章之后，我们对此问题作一继续探讨。
