论文部分内容阅读
近年来,瑞典和芬兰两国的探矿采矿发展迅猛,特别是与十年前相比,不可同日而语。矿业再度成为暴利行业。两国生产型矿产资源的税制或开采特许权制度一直受到广泛讨论。但两国《矿产法》均未对矿产资源所有权问题做出明确界定。无论两国《矿产法》是否规定了国家为矿产资源所有者,瑞典和芬兰两国在国家层面均无法对矿产资产的勘采发挥决定性影响。所有权还可以指在金属矿业公司中的持股比例。更广义讲,国家的作用可追溯为矿产政策或战略——包括芬兰和瑞典在内的数个欧盟成员国最近发布了此政策或战略。该文采用比较分析法,旨在探讨与分析瑞典和芬兰在国家层面如何调整矿产权、管控矿业公司,并基于历史回顾和全球情况简析,就上述两国在国家层面的未来矿产战略所发挥的作用提出了看法。本文从历史角度对瑞典和芬兰在国家层面的矿产资源权属、采矿规范与管控、国有矿产勘采公司所有制方面的作用进行了探讨。该文介绍了两国在不同的历史时期基于社会共识对国家所有制的不同观念而选择的不同道路,也即,矿产资源战略应不断调整,积极契合历史际遇。我们认为,作为矿产资源所有者与管控者及勘采活动监管者,国家应在上述两国矿产资源战略方面发挥更充分的作用。正如本文所分析的那样,瑞典和芬兰在国家所有权和控制权方面总体上拥有较积极的经验。我们认为,上述两国应同其它国家和国际组织分享和交流这方面的经验,首先是欧盟和欧洲委员会,其次是欧盟和欧洲以外以及联合国和非盟框架内的国家和组织。
In recent years, prospecting and mining in Sweden and Finland have been developing rapidly, especially compared with a decade ago. Mining industry once again become profiteering. The taxation system or exploitation concession system for production-type mineral resources in the two countries has been extensively discussed. However, neither the “Mineral Law” of both countries made a clear definition of the ownership of mineral resources. No matter whether the “Mineral Law” of the two countries stipulates that the country is the owner of mineral resources, both Sweden and Finland can not exert a decisive influence on mineral resources exploration at the national level. Ownership can also refer to the shareholding in a metal mining company. More generally, the role of the state can be traced back to mineral policy or strategy - several EU member states, including Finland and Sweden, recently released the policy or strategy. The article uses a comparative analysis to explore and analyze how Sweden and Finland adjust mineral rights at the national level and control mining companies. Based on historical review and global analysis, the article discusses the future mineral strategy of the two countries at the national level The role of the proposed views. This paper discusses the role of Sweden and Finland in the ownership of mineral resources at the national level, the regulation and control of mining and the ownership of state-owned mineral exploration companies from a historical perspective. This article introduces the different paths chosen by the two countries in different historical periods based on the different views on state ownership based on social consensus. That is, the strategy of mineral resources should be constantly adjusted to suit the historic situation. In our opinion, as the owner and controller of mineral resources and the regulator of exploration activities, the state should play a more adequate role in the mineral resource strategy of the two countries. As analyzed in this article, Sweden and Finland generally have more positive experiences with country ownership and control. We believe that the two countries should share and exchange experiences with other countries and international organizations in this area, starting with the EU and the European Commission, followed by countries and organizations outside the European Union and beyond as well as within the framework of the UN and the AU.