作者：巩固
作者介绍：北京大学法学院研究员
出版日期：2025年6月9日
内容提要：主流法学理论把自然资源国家所有权定位为物权，试图通过行 使机制的“物权化”改造来回应改革需求，具有客体私产化、主体私人化、权益私权化、行使私法化、功能私益化等特点。这种认识与国有自然资源产权制度改革的政策文件和实践并不契合。改革相关政策文件中的“所有权”是经济学层面的宽泛概念，其客体更广泛、主体更多元、内容更丰富、行使更多样、价值更多维，包含各种运用公权力的公法制度，非私法层面的民法所有权所能完整涵盖和表达。这种误读现象的出现，是不同学科概念的差异性、经济学概念使用的广泛性、立法混用政策文件概念、法学领域财产权理论残缺、形式主义思维 盛行以及不当处理法律与政策的关系等多重因素所致。为使改革相关政策话语在法律层面获得良好转化，相关理论解读和制度构建应以资源利用综合效益的全面实现为价值目标，以作为宪法权力的自然资源国家所有权为核心概念， 以公权性自然资源国家所有权的行使为逻辑主线，以国有自然资源管护相关立 法的完善为主要路径。
关键词：资源产权 国家所有权 制度改革 政策话语 法律转化
Abstract: Mainstream legal theories position state ownership of natural resources within the framework of property rights, attempting to address reform demands through the ‘propertization’ of operational mechanisms, characterized by the privatization of objects, the privatization of subjects, the privatization of rights and interests, the privatization of exercise, and the privatization of functions. However, this understanding does not align with policy documents or reform practice of state-owned natural resource property rights system. The ‘ownership’ in reform discourse is a broad economic concept, encompassing a wider range of objects, more diverse subjects, richer content, more diverse exercises, and more multidimensional values. It includes various public law systems exercised through public power, which cannot be fully captured by the civil law concept of ownership at the private law level. The widespread misinterpretation in legal academia stems from multiple factors, including conceptual differences across disciplines, the broad usage of economic terms, the mixed concepts of policy documents, the incompleteness of legal property rights theories, the prevalence of formalist thinking, and the dialectical relationship between law and policy. To ensure the effective translation of reform discourse into legal frameworks, theoretical interpretation and institutional construction should aim at comprehensively realizing the integrated benefits of resource utilization. This should be guided by the core concept of state ownership of natural resources as a constitutional power, centered on the exercise of public-power-based state ownership of natural resources as the logical framework, and focus on improving legislation related to state-owned natural resource management as the primary pathway.