The Treasure Trove Found The Study Of Human Rights

The regime of buried-object discovery dates back to the early era of Roman law. The ownership of the buried object was attributed to the land owner thanks to the contemporary non-circulation of property and the bondage of the common societal attitude. In the times of Empire Hadrianus, the authorities granted the discoverer limited rights to acquire the ownership of the buried object along with the background of increasing trades of land property and the shifting social attitude. Afterwards, France, Germany, Italy and other states gradually accepted this legislative notion due to its progressive qualities. By contrast, China adopts the state-owning way with respect of the discovered buried-object, which makes that the rights of the discoverer as a civil subject cannot be protected and the values of the object cannot be maximally utilized. This paper studies the maximal utilization of the object under the regime of limited ownership acquirement and the satisfaction of the proper human desire. Meanwhile, this article examines the legislations of China and other countries and proposes detailed design for the purpose of improving the regime of buried-object discovery, maximally protecting the civil rights of the discoverers and realizing the aim of civil-subject protection. This paper finally establishes the inevitable value-orientation of the future Civil Code that the discoverer ought to have limited rights to acquire the ownership of the buried object.The first part raises the question. This part introduce some cases with relevant to buried-object and emphasize the defect of domestic legal procedure in protection of the discoverer's right. Meanwhile, according to the contrast and analysis, the writer argues for the scientific and reasonable of the regime that the discoverer ought to acquire the ownership of the buried-object finitely.The second part introduces the legislation with relevant to the regime of buried-object discovery in France, German, Switzerland, Taiwan province of China and law of Tang. Besides, having contrasted the laws and explained their identical and difference, the writer finds the legislation trend of the regime of buried-object discovery. At the end of this part, the writer finds the origin of ours regime and contrasted the difference in legislation between China and Soviet Union, finally the writer concludes that China's legislation is extremely unreasonable. The third part is the careful analysis of domestic legislation's defect. Our country's regime of buried-object discovery is acutely different with other countries, meanwhile the laws for regularizing the regime of buried-object discovery is fragmented and unreasonable. With reference to the exact legal norms, the writer discusses the current norms'infringement of right in value orientation, points out the defect of the current regulation and explains the abuse result from it.The fourth part is the consideration of how to construct the regime of buried-object discovery in law. Firstly, the writer discusses the necessity and feasibility of establishing the regime that the discoverer ought to acquire the ownership of the buried-object limitedly in light of international legislation. At the end, the writer puts forward the specific scheme for establishment of the regime of buried-object discovery combined with international legislation and legislation idea of domestic scholar, besides, the writer puts forward the legislation suggested with relevant to the concept of buried-object, the constitution of discovery and the legal consequence.