| Chinese people on both sides of the straits have shared many things in common, some very like conceptions and thoughts in Which is manifested in the old wealth goes with earth. However, in the past 50 years or so, normal intercourses being ceased, and separate political orientations prevailing on each side of the Strait, a relatively broad gap has already been sunk in between the legal systems of the two regions. Born, bred and educated in Tai Wan, and then coming to the main land to pursue his L.L.M course, the author does not feel quite easy with the legal system, laws and regulations, with which he was not very familiar. However, this animated and aroused the author's interests in undertaking comparative research work in some similar legal aspects on both sides of the Strait.Along with the growth of wealth, one must be fain long to possess, in his own name, a house, wherein he may enjoy life, and whereby his issues may succeed their family property. In the past several decades, however, laws within the main land laid rigid restriction on the possession of private house property, for it was supposed to meddle with the issue of ownership in land, and therefore, this right was usually denied. Yet, now, with the concept of land use right being established, and furthermore, with the development of reform and opening, the ownership of house property has been largely recognized and guaranteed by law. Small wonder, the privatization of house property will be the main stream in the future. The case being this, owners, while using, profiting from and disposing of their house property, will have to encounter preexistent problems thereof, and will inevitably suffer from conflict of rights between themselves. Should this occur, the basic rules stipulated in the General Principles of Civil Law and some other outworn solutions such as reconciliation by neighborhood committee, cannot be fit to resolve the disputes. Therefore, the Standing Committee of the People's Congress of Shanghai on May 28th, 1997, passed Shanghai Dwelling Realty Management Regulation as the fundamental law for dwelling management (referred to as realty management in the regulation),while in advance, Tai Wan, formulated on June 28th ,1995, Apartment Building Management Regulation, which is, in fact, of similar contents, though scholars in Tai Wan confer the regulation with the appellation Constitution of Dwelling. The fact that both Shanghai and Tai Wan are confronted with heavy density of population and inadequate dwelling place, poses these two regulations with some similar problems to deal with, and this is also the very reason why the author wants to expatiate on these two regulations by comparison.In the opening chapter of this treatise, the author sets forth motives as well as purposes of his choice, and analyses through comparison the legal framework of each regulation, so that the readers may acquire a general idea of what the following chapters are about. In the second chapter, the author expatiates on the concrete structure of the distribution of powers and duties in each regulation via a comparative way, for example: all business concerning realty management, according to the Dwelling Realty management Regulation are settled though a three-tire processing, the General Meeting of Owners (or the General Meeting of Representatives of Owners)——the Committee of Owners——the Board of Owners and Realty Management Company jointly, and the Street Office, on behalf of specific governmental authority, assists, as an auxiliary, in the business by carrying out the policies of the municipal and district government. The mode employed by the Apartment Building management Regulation, on the other hand, is a processing through the Meeting of the Owners——the Management Committee (or the Principal of Management) and the Management Service jointly. Between these two modes of management, there are, besides discrepancies in appellation of the functionary bodies, differences in distribution of duties and powers, and in operation, all of wh... |
PDF Full Text Request