本文選題：業(yè)主維權(quán) + 法律動員��； 參考：《吉林大學》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：本文從法社會學的視角出發(fā)對三個小區(qū)的業(yè)主維權(quán)進行了研究。業(yè)主維權(quán)屬于典型意義上的“依法維權(quán)”，這已經(jīng)在學術界達成了共識，隨著法律正在進入一個社會學的時代，從法社會學的視角切入業(yè)主維權(quán)研究以打破社會學與法學之間相互隔膜的知識傳統(tǒng)顯得愈加重要。然而，目前業(yè)主維權(quán)研究雖然強調(diào)法律是業(yè)主維權(quán)貫徹始終的樞紐，但多只是把法律作為一種背景性材料或結(jié)論性用語加以使用，，并沒有深入分析法律在業(yè)主維權(quán)中扮演的角色。缺乏法社會學的視角，導致業(yè)主維權(quán)研究中策略主義研究的泛濫、訴訟維權(quán)研究的缺席和對業(yè)主維權(quán)意義的過度解讀，從而使法律在業(yè)主維權(quán)中的面目極其模糊和籠統(tǒng)。要真正探究法律在業(yè)主維權(quán)中扮演了什么角色就必須在業(yè)主維權(quán)研究中引入法社會學的視角并以其為基礎建構(gòu)業(yè)主維權(quán)的理論分析框架。 本文借鑒法律與社會運動研究中的法律動員理論與法律機會結(jié)構(gòu)理論作為本文的解釋框架。法律動員是將不滿、訴求和目標用法律話語轉(zhuǎn)化為權(quán)利主張并在法律場域中實踐的過程，它的成敗很大程度上取決于變動不居的抗爭環(huán)境。在中國的法律情境下，業(yè)主維權(quán)的法律機會結(jié)構(gòu)主要包括五個維度：法律存量、法律行動的成本、同盟與反維權(quán)勢力、法院的可接受度與法律意識。從這兩個法律分析框架出發(fā)，本文分別對三個小區(qū)的業(yè)主維權(quán)行動進行了研究和比較。 本文發(fā)現(xiàn)，在業(yè)主維權(quán)中法律既可以作為溝通實踐，形塑著業(yè)主之間的交往、期待、理解和互動模式以及對社會和政治生活可能性的想象，法律話語、法律意識、法律象征意涵、法律符號和法律互動模式是其主要表現(xiàn)形式；法律又是一種治理技術，政府和法院能夠運用法律來調(diào)節(jié)、應對甚至打壓業(yè)主維權(quán)行動，并且能取得事半功倍的效果；法律還可以是業(yè)主維權(quán)的策略資源，具體表現(xiàn)在它可以成為業(yè)主維權(quán)的話語資源、動員資源、認知資源和合法性資源以及能進一步拓展其他資源。 本文對業(yè)主法律動員過程進行了分析。業(yè)主法律動員過程包括確定抗爭議題，主要通過命名、歸因和形成法律訴求來實現(xiàn)；學法、普法和對訴訟策略與訴訟技術的學習；采取正式的法律行動——訴訟以及對業(yè)主法律動員的“遺產(chǎn)”進行分析和評估。在這三個小區(qū)中，業(yè)主法律動員都是在業(yè)主自力救濟與行政救濟失敗后的一種“反應性的法律動員”，但是也出現(xiàn)了從“反應性法律動員”向“進取性法律動員”轉(zhuǎn)化的趨勢，盡管這種趨勢并不明顯。在對業(yè)主法律動員策略與非法律策略關系的研究中，本文發(fā)現(xiàn)二者之間的關系是單向度的關系，前者對后者沒有明顯的影響，后者對前者則影響巨大，這一點區(qū)別于法律與社會運動研究傳統(tǒng)認為的兩者之間存在辯證關系。 法律意識研究是法律動員研究的核心議題之一。本文發(fā)現(xiàn)業(yè)主在法律動員過程中法律意識并非靜止不變的，而是隨著法律動員的推進不斷發(fā)生變化：在維權(quán)初期，業(yè)主多秉持“敬畏法律”的法律意識；隨著正式法律行動——訴訟的展開，業(yè)主的法律意識往往轉(zhuǎn)變成“利用法律”的法律意識；訴訟結(jié)束后，訴訟結(jié)果使業(yè)主的法律意識產(chǎn)生了分化，敗訴往往使業(yè)主的法律意識轉(zhuǎn)變成“懸浮型法律意識”；勝訴則會進一步強化“利用法律”的法律意識。 本文發(fā)現(xiàn)，近幾年業(yè)主維權(quán)的法律機會結(jié)構(gòu)在縱向上開放程度有了明顯提升：法律存量增多，業(yè)主和業(yè)委會的法律地位得到明確；由于業(yè)主采取種種訴訟策略或者不聘請代理律師以規(guī)避訴訟成本與舉證能力的提升，在一定程度上降低了法律行動的成本；業(yè)主維權(quán)的同盟開始增多，反維權(quán)勢力稍有所減弱；法院對業(yè)主訴訟的可接受度和業(yè)主的法律意識都有了很大提升。從橫向看，通過對發(fā)生在不同地域的三個業(yè)主維權(quán)案例的比較研究，本文發(fā)現(xiàn)業(yè)主維權(quán)的法律機會結(jié)構(gòu)存在著明顯的地域差異，主要表現(xiàn)在同盟與反維權(quán)勢力和法院的可接受度這兩個維度上，因此，對業(yè)主維權(quán)法律機會結(jié)構(gòu)的考察應注意區(qū)分不同城市的法律情境。 本文進一步對業(yè)主維權(quán)研究的主流“意識形態(tài)”，即將業(yè)主維權(quán)視為建構(gòu)公民社會路徑的論斷進行了澄清。本文發(fā)現(xiàn)M小區(qū)和X小區(qū)業(yè)主維權(quán)主要將法律視為維權(quán)的工具而非真正信仰法律，他們行動的倫理基礎不是基于法治精神和權(quán)利意識的公民自主性實踐倫理，而是基于傳統(tǒng)儒家文化倫理和樸素的日常生活倫理。他們鍥而不舍地上訴并非基于對法治信念的孜孜追求，而是基于傳統(tǒng)意識中“上級比下級好”的“伸冤”邏輯，從這個視角來看，業(yè)主的法律救濟邏輯與傳統(tǒng)的上訪等其他救濟邏輯沒什么兩樣，仍然不過是依仗高階規(guī)則之權(quán)威要求低階規(guī)則兌現(xiàn)國家既已賦予的權(quán)利而已。因此，這兩個小區(qū)業(yè)主維權(quán)并沒有生產(chǎn)出多少公民意識和公民勇氣，更不是公民的主體性建構(gòu)，他們的維權(quán)行動仍然囿于傳統(tǒng)的倫理意識與臣民義務感的框架內(nèi)。因此，對業(yè)主維權(quán)意義的解讀應該具體考察其維權(quán)實踐過程中的內(nèi)在邏輯和實踐倫理屬性，而不能簡單地進行浪漫化處理。
[Abstract]:From the perspective of Sociology of law, this paper studies the owners' rights of the owners of the three communities. The owner's right to rights belongs to the "right to protect the rights according to law". This has already reached a consensus in the academic circle. With the law being entered into a sociological era, the study of the owners' rights to protect the rights of the owners from the perspective of the sociology of law in order to break the sociology and law. However, at present, although the owner maintenance research emphasizes that the law is the hub of the owner's maintenance, the law is mostly used as a kind of background material or concluding term, and does not deeply analyze the role of law in the owner's rights. From the angle of view, it leads to the overflowing of strategic research in the research of owners' rights protection, the absence of the study of litigation rights and the overreading of the meaning of owners' rights, which makes the face of the law in the owner's rights very vague and general. From the perspective of learning and building a theoretical analysis framework for owners' rights protection.
This paper uses the theory of legal mobilization and the theory of legal opportunity structure in the study of law and social movement as the framework of this article. Legal mobilization is the process of transforming discontent, appeals and goals into claims and practice in the legal field. The success or failure of the legal mobilization depends largely on the discontented environment. In the context of China's law, the legal opportunity structure of the owners' rights protection mainly includes five dimensions: the stock of law, the cost of legal action, the alliance and anti rights forces, the acceptability of the court and the legal consciousness. From these two legal analytical frameworks, this paper studies and compares the owners' rights actions of the three small areas respectively.
It is found that the law can not only be used as a communication practice, but also forms a form of communication, expectation, understanding and interaction, as well as the imagination of the possibility of social and political life, legal discourse, legal consciousness, legal symbolic meaning, legal symbols and legal interaction patterns, and the law is a kind of governance. The government and the court can use the law to adjust, deal with or even suppress the owners' rights action, and can achieve twice the result of half the effort. The law can also be a strategic resource for the owners to maintain rights. It is manifested in the resources, the mobilization of resources, the cognitive resources and legal resources, and the further extension of the owner's rights to maintain the rights of the owners. Other resources.
The process of owners' legal mobilization is analyzed in this paper. The process of owners' legal mobilization includes the determination of the issue of resistance, mainly through naming, attribution and formation of legal demands; learning law, universal law and learning of litigation and litigation technology; taking formal legal action, litigation and "heritage" to owners' legal mobilization. In the three communities, the owners' legal mobilization is a "reactive legal mobilization" after the owners' self relief and administrative relief failed, but the trend from "reactive legal mobilization" to "enterprising legal mobilization" has also emerged. This trend is not obvious. In the study of the relationship between strategy and non legal strategy, this paper finds that the relationship between the two is one way relationship, the former has no obvious influence on the latter, and the latter has a great influence on the former, which is different from the argument relationship between the traditional law and the social movement research.
The study of legal consciousness is one of the core issues in the study of legal mobilization. It is found that the legal consciousness of the owners in the process of legal mobilization is not static, but is constantly changing with the promotion of legal mobilization: in the early stages of the rights, the owners hold the legal consciousness of "awe law", and the formal legal action - the litigation The legal consciousness of the owner is often transformed into the legal consciousness of "using the law". After the end of the lawsuit, the result of the lawsuit causes the owner's legal consciousness to differentiate, and the loss of the lawsuit often turns the owner's legal consciousness into a "suspension type legal consciousness", and the winner will further strengthen the legal consciousness of "using the law".
This paper finds that in recent years, the legal opportunity structure of owners' rights protection has been obviously improved in the vertical degree: the increase of the legal stock and the clear legal status of the owners and the industry committee are clear, and to a certain extent, the owners have taken various litigation strategies or did not hire agents to improve the cost of litigation and the ability to raise evidence. The cost of legal action is lower; the alliance of owners' rights to rights has begun to increase, and the anti rights forces have been slightly weakened; the court has greatly improved the acceptability of the owners' litigation and the legal consciousness of the owners. Through the comparative study of the three owners' rights cases in different regions, this paper finds the law of the owners' rights protection. There are obvious regional differences in the opportunity structure, which are mainly manifested in the two dimensions of the alliance and anti - rights forces and the acceptability of the court. Therefore, the investigation of the legal opportunity structure of the owner's rights protection should pay attention to the distinction between the legal situation of different cities.
This article further clarifies the mainstream "ideology" of the owner's rights protection research, and clarifies the assertion that the owner's rights are regarded as the construction of the civil society path. This article finds that the rights of the owners of the M community and the X community mainly regard the law as a tool for safeguarding the rights rather than the real belief in the law, and the ethical basis of their action is not based on the spirit of the rule of law and the rights. It is based on the traditional Confucian cultural ethics and the simple daily life ethics, which are not based on the diligent pursuit of the belief in the rule of law, but based on the "superior" logic of "superior than the lower level" in the traditional consciousness. From this perspective, the owner's legal relief logic and the legal relief logic are based on this perspective. The other relief logic, such as the traditional petitions, is not two, but it is still the right of the lower rules to meet the rights that the state has endowed with the authority of the higher order rules. Therefore, the rights of the two owners do not produce how much civic consciousness and civic courage, but not the citizen's subjective construction, and their rights to maintain their rights are still In the framework of the traditional ethical consciousness and the sense of the subject's obligation, the interpretation of the meaning of the owner's rights should be specific to the internal logic and the practical ethical attributes in the process of the practice of rights, but it can not be simply romantically treated.

【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D90-052

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 李猛;;法律與社會 導言[J];北大法律評論;1999年02期

2 邴正,鐘賢巍;當代社會發(fā)展趨勢與中國社會的結(jié)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)型[J];北方論叢;2004年05期

3 黃衛(wèi)平;陳家喜;;城市運動中的地方政府與社會——基于N區(qū)業(yè)主維權(quán)案例的分析[J];東南學術;2008年06期

4 裴宜理;閻小駿;;社會運動理論的發(fā)展[J];當代世界社會主義問題;2006年04期

5 陳曉運;;去組織化:業(yè)主集體行動的策略——以G市反對垃圾焚燒廠建設事件為例[J];公共管理學報;2012年02期

6 何艷玲;汪廣龍;高紅紅;;從破碎城市到重整城市:隔離社區(qū)、社會分化與城市治理轉(zhuǎn)型[J];公共行政評論;2011年01期

7 暢達;承諾的背后是品牌[J];城市開發(fā);2001年07期

8 趙曉秋;;美麗園再審案:兩個群體的較量[J];法律與生活;2006年18期

9 姚建宗;;法律的政治邏輯闡釋[J];政治學研究;2010年02期

10 張磊,劉麗敏;物業(yè)運作:從國家中分離出來的新公共空間 國家權(quán)力過度化與社會權(quán)利不足之間的張力[J];社會;2005年01期

本文編號：1818049