随着城市在区域经济发展中的核心地位不断增强,政府对土地的征收急剧膨胀。由此,强制征收问题成为当代中国的一个缩影。在世界范围内,强制征收的条件大多被笼统地确定为“公共利益”或者“公共使用”等。基于这一概念的模糊性,确定其界定主体才是问题的关键。以美国强制征收第一案“Kelo v.New London”为例,深入分析该案中关于“公共使用”界定主体的博弈,并结合中国国情,得出地方立法机关才是界定“公共使用”的最佳主体的结论。 With the increasing central role of cities in regional economic development, the government’s expropriation of land has rapidly expanded. As a result, the compulsory expropriation issue has become a microcosm of contemporary China. In the world, most of the conditions for compulsory expropriation are generally defined as “public interest ” or “public use ” and so on. Based on the fuzziness of this concept, identifying the subject of its definition is the crux of the problem. Taking the first case of forced expropriation by the United States, “Kelo v. New London,” as an example, this article analyzes in depth the game about the subject of “public use” in the case and concludes with the situation in China that the local legislature only defines the The best subject of public use.