【作者】 朱晓娟；

【导师】 李永军；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 无论在发达国家还是发展中国家,合作社作为一种比较重要的经济和社会力量在社会生活中都发挥着重要作用,各国通过政策和制度的完善也越来越重视合作社的发展与作用的发挥,并且国际上也已形成有关合作社基本原则的共识。我国合作社的历史虽然比较悠久,但是长期以来国家并未将合作社作为经济主体或法律主体对待,而是将其作为推行政策的政治工具,因此导致了我国合作社的发展陷入低迷甚至很长一段时间销声匿迹,仅存的“合作社”也因严重异化而背离了合作社的本质。改革开放以来,个人彼此间相互联合以增强经济实力和社会竞争力的愿望促使农民合作组织在农村悄然兴起并迅速发展,但在产生并发展起来后的很长时间内,这种自发的农民合作社都是在法律的边缘生存,处于无法可依的状态。直到2006年10月31日我国颁布了调整农民专业合作社的《中华人民共和国农民专业合作社法》,才结束了农民专业合作社法律地位不明确的尴尬状态。然而在我国,除了农民专业合作社外,还存在着大量的农村专业技术协会、农村社区合作社、信用合作社、供销合作社、消费合作社、住宅合作社以及正在试点的医疗合作社、保险合作社等有着合作社名称的组织。上述合作类组织仍旧缺少法律认可的地位,法律性质不明确,仅有规范效力层次较低的规范性文件对其调整,无法保证其正常、健康发展。此外,实践中还有大量合作组织仅有合作之名而无合作之实,因此,从理论的角度厘清合作社与非合作社之间的界限、在法律上澄清并确定合作社的主体地位对于促进真正合作社的发展、指导其立法十分重要。本文以民事主体的相关理论作为论证的基础,借鉴其他国家相关法律的规定研究合作社的主体属性问题,对我国合作组织1的法律地位进行分析,并提出我国合作社主体制度完善的建议。故本文的考察和论证有助于我国民事主体理论的清晰化、合作社法律地位的明朗化以及合作社立法的体系化和科学化,具有一定的理论价值和现实指导意义,目的是实现理论与实践的良好契合。全文除导言和结论外,共分为四个部分。导言陈述了选题的背景和价值、研究方法及文章的创新之处,在结论部分指出合作社因其法律构造符合民事主体的本质特征,体现了主体理性的要求,故属于民事主体之中间法人、合作社法人,应按照民事主体的相关理论与立法对其加以研究和规制,合作社的健康发展除了明晰其法律上的主体地位外,政府相关政策的扶持也是必不可少的。第一部分的主要内容是界定合作社的概念,包括社会学、经济学与法学上的概念,社会学与经济学意义上的合作社是合作社法律概念的基础。通过对各国合作社法中合作社概念的比较分析,笔者归纳出四种界定合作社法律概念的方式并主张我国合作社法律概念界定应采用第四种方式,即合作社属于劳动者为主体的民主控制的自治、自助性的法人,这一概念既包含合作社的基本特征又阐释出合作社的法律性质,表明合作社具有独特的原则和价值。通过对各国合作社法中合作社主体地位的立法例考察,笔者发现,各国法中几乎都将合作社规定为法人,而法人又分为民法上的法人和商法上的法人,对于合作社到底属于民法还是商法上的法人却很少关注。本部分为论证合作社作为法律主体的本质特征、条件等奠定基础。第二和第三部分是本文的理论基础部分。第二部分主要是界定民事主体的含义、特征及其与商事主体的关系,并围绕合作社被界定为法人的观点,重点论证了团体被赋予法人主体资格的意义。民法上的主体意味着民事权利义务的归属资格,德国民法典及受其影响的民法上的主体更表现出对理性因素的特别强调,是否具有理性也是民事主体与商事主体之根本区别。德国民法典受理性哲学的影响在法典的形式结构、法典的各项实体制度中都贯彻了理性的要求,为解决自然人和法人在同一民事主体制度框架下的共存,扬弃了传统民事主体的“人格”标志,而以无伦理性的“权利能力”作为民事主体资格在实证法上的标志。由于理性本来意义的主体只能是自然人,为使团体主体满足理性的要求,只能运用拟制理论。并且法人本质拟制与实在之争论均是在承认法人为独立主体的前提下为其寻找法哲学上的说明依据,因而该争论不影响法人的独立主体地位。第三部分在第二部分理论论证的基础上,指出在理性标准的衡量下,虽然民法为适应社会经济生活的需要而确认团体的主体地位,但法人的主体资格并非像自然人一样理所当然。只有通过复杂的立法技术使得团体具备一定的法律构造,体现理性所要求的独立的意思,只有团体与其成员在人格、意志、财产及责任上相互独立,即具备理性要求下的条件,才能够被赋予法人资格。本部分进一步指出,虽然“理性—主体—意志”的图式决定了拥有独立意思的法人应独立承担责任,但经过论证,得出法人独立承担责任并不等于成员有限责任的结论。只要拥有独立的意思并有承担独立责任的物质基础和权利义务的归属名义,团体即可作为法人,法人主体性与其成员的责任形式没有必然联系。运用法人条件衡量合作社,更加证实了合作社符合理性要求的法人主体性。通过分析合作社在传统法人学理分类和我国法人立法分类中的位置,指出合作社属于社团法人分类中的中间法人,在修改我国现行《民法通则》时应增加规定新的合作社法人,在未来民法典中更应留有合作社法人的位置。在对合作社与其他组织进行区分后可以更清楚了解合作社强调劳动而非资本联合的自治、自助、民主之基本特征,因此有构建合作社法律制度体系的必要。第四部分在清晰界定合作社法人主体性的基础上,运用该理论来分析我国合作社的现状并提出解决现存问题的方案。解决我国合作社的主体性问题必须对我国合作社的发展历史有所了解,当时错误思想及由此导致的错误实践极大影响了合作社在我国的健康发展,这是我国在发展现代意义合作社时必须吸取的教训。合作社有无法承受之重,我国当下很多被称为“合作社”的组织并非真正意义上的合作社,合作社应该是“草根合作社”而不是“国家合作社”,一定要防止合作社沦为推行国家政治和政策的工具。合作社是独立的市场主体,其只是主体形态多元化的今天可供人们选择的一种主体形式而已。合作社虽不具有宪法上的说明意义,但长期以来我国宪法上的错误观念导致将合作社作为集体经济组织对待的错误做法,因此建议修改宪法的相应规定;我国民商合一的立法传统决定了应该在民事基本法如将要制定的民法典中留有合作社的空间与地位;此外,应借鉴国际上的立法经验,在农民专业合作社这种特定类型合作社立法的基础上,制定一部适合我国各种类型合作社的统一的法律,以便促进萌芽过程中合作社类组织法律地位的确定。对于合作社的健康发展,国际上的经验是法律与政府政策共同推动的结果,我国也不应例外。更多还原

【Abstract】 Not only in developed countries but also in developing countries, as an important social and economic force, cooperatives play a significant role in society. Many a country, by improving relative policy and system, put emphasis on cooperatives’development and function more and more, and there is much consensus about cooperatives’fundamental principles internationally. In our country, the movement to organize cooperatives has a long history, but our country didn’t treat cooperatives as economic subject or legal subject for a long time, however, treated them as political instrument for carrying out policies. The above reasons led to cooperatives’plateau development even to passing away, and now many organizations called“cooperative”have been departing from cooperatives’character. Since opening—reform policy, individuals each had been uniting to strengthen power and competence, which prompted farmers’cooperatives to spring up and developed at a great speed. They, however, had survived on the margin of law until“farmers’specified cooperatives’law of the Republic of China”was promulgated on October 31, 2006, which regulates farmers’specified cooperatives. In our country, however, there are a great number of rural specified technique associations, rural community cooperatives, credit cooperatives, supply and marketing cooperatives, consumers’cooperatives, housing cooperatives, and medical service cooperatives and insurance cooperatives at pilot, besides farmers’specified cooperatives. The above cooperative organizations, which are regulated by rules or regulations, are still short of legal status and have vague legal nature, which influence them to develop normally and soundly. Some cooperative organizations have merely the name“cooperative”but not the practice of cooperatives. Therefore, we should tell genuine cooperatives from those cooperative organizations, which will stimulate development of genuine cooperatives and direct cooperatives’legislation. So it is emergent to establish subject status of cooperatives in law.Based on relative theories of civil subject, using other countries’legislation for reference, the dissertation analyzes legal status of our country’s cooperative organizations, and puts forward the suggestion of perfecting cooperatives’subject system in our country. By inspection and demonstration, in order to realize both theoretical value and practical significance, the dissertation is very useful for clarity of the theory of civil subject in our country, for conformation of cooperatives’legal status, and for guiding our country’s legislation on cooperatives. The whole article is divided into four parts apart from introduction and conclusions. The introduction part states the topic’s background and value, study method, and the dissertation’s innovation. The conclusion part points out that cooperatives belong to middle legal persons and cooperative legal persons of civil subject, because cooperatives’legal structure responds to essential nature of civil subject, and embodies the requirement of subject ration. We should study and regulate cooperatives according to relevant theory and legislation of civil subject. Cooperatives’healthy development depends both on the clarity of their subject status in law, and on the government’s support.The first part deals chiefly with cooperatives’concept, including sociological, economic concept, and concept in law. cooperatives’concept in sociology and in economy are the basis of their concept in law. By comparison and analysis of cooperatives’concept in other countries’cooperative act, the author generalize four modes to define cooperatives’ law concept, and advocate that we should adopt the forth mode to define our country’s cooperative’s concept, i.e. cooperatives are legal persons which treat laborers as subject, pursue the principle of democratic control, autonomy, and self-reliance. The above concept includes both cooperative’s basic characteristic and cooperative’s nature in law, which displays that cooperatives have unique principles and value. By inspecting regulations of cooperatives’subject status in many countries’cooperatives acts, the author find that they almost treat cooperatives as legal persons. Legal persons can be parted into legal persons in civil law and legal persons in commercial law, but cooperatives’specific belonging is neglected. The part lays a foundation for demonstrating cooperatives’nature and conditions as legal subject.The second and the third part are the theoretical basis of the whole article. The second part is to define civil subject’s meaning, nature and the relationship with commercial subject, and demonstrate mainly the meaning of groups’being bestowed on legal persons’subject centering on the opinion that cooperatives are legal persons. Subject in civil law means belonging qualification of civil rights and duties. Especially that subject in German Civil Code and other civil laws affected by German civil law expresses special emphasis on ration element. Having ration or not is the essential distinction between civil subject and commercial subject. Influenced by ration philosophy, German Civil Code implemented requirements of ration not only in Civil Code’s form and structure, but also in all substantive systems. To solve the problem of co-existing of natural persons and legal persons in one framework of subject system, German Civil Code abandoned traditional“personality”symbol, but took“capacity for rights”having no ethics’nature as civil subject’s symbol. On account that rational subject can be only natural persons, groups can merely apply theory of legal fiction to meet requirements of subject ration. Arguments of legal fiction and realism of legal persons’nature are to seek philosophical accordance at the precondition of admitting that legal persons are independent subject, so this argument doesn’t influence independent subject status of legal persons.On the basis of the second part’s demonstration, the third part points out that under ration standard, civil law confirmed groups’subject status for adapting the need of society and economy. But legal persons’subject qualification is not as a matter of course like natural persons. Only when groups have specific legal structure through complicated legislative technique, embodying independent will required by ration, and when groups’personality, will, property and liability are independent of those of their members, having conditions required by ration, can groups be given legal persons’qualification. Furthermore, the formula“ration-subject--will”decides that legal persons having independent will should bear liability independently, but legal persons’independent liability doesn’t mean members’limited liability. As long as a group has independent will, material basis for bearing independent liability, and belonging name for rights and duties, it can be treated as a legal person. There is no inevitable connection between legal persons’subject attribute and members’liability type. Using legal persons’terms to judge cooperatives, we can conclude that cooperatives consist with legal persons’subject attribute. By analyzing cooperatives’place in legal persons’traditional theoretical classification and their legislative assortment of our country, the author advocate that cooperatives belong to middle legal persons of universitates personarum, and that legislators should increase a new type of cooperative legal persons in the General Principles of the Civil Law in force. We could see cooperatives’basic nature of autonomy, self-reliance, and democracy by comparing cooperatives with other organizations, so it is necessary to construct law system of cooperatives.The forth part applies the theory of subject attribute of cooperative legal persons to analyze cooperatives’current situation in our country, and to put forward plans for solving problems. Erroneous thought and mistaken practice influenced greatly cooperatives’healthy development in our country, which demands that we should learn from it when developing modern cooperatives. At present, many organizations called“cooperatives”do not genuine cooperatives in our country. Cooperatives should be“people-based”but not“state-based”, and they are independent marketing subject. We should prevent cooperatives from being treated as instruments for carrying out country’s politics and policy. Cooperatives are merely a type of subject. Although they do not have demonstrating meaning in Constitution, mistaken notion in our country’s Constitution leads to wrong practice of treating cooperatives as collective economic organizations. The author suggest that legislators amend Constitution’s corresponding provisions. Otherwise, there should leave space for cooperatives in future Civil Code, and we should enact one single law regulating all kinds of cooperatives using other countries’legislative experience for reference to give those cooperative organizations definite legal status. There is an international experience that cooperatives’healthy development depends on mutual function of law and policy. There is no exception in our country.更多还原