上海海关关于对跨关区公路转关集装箱货物施加封志的管理办法（试行）

上一篇: 长沙市邮政通信管理规定
下一篇: 北京市财政局关于处理库存积压产品的财务处理的暂行办法

湖北省襄樊市人民政府办公室


襄樊市人民政府办公室关于印发《襄樊市市区被征地农民就业培训和社会保障暂行办法》的通知

襄樊政办发〔2009〕59号


各县（市）、区人民政府，各开发区管委会，市政府各部门：

《襄樊市市区被征地农民就业培训和社会保障暂行办法》已经市政府同意，现印发给你们，请认真遵照执行。








二〇〇九年七月十六日







襄樊市市区被征地农民就业培训和社会保障暂行办法

第一章总则

第一条为了保护被征地农民和农村集体经济组织的合法权益，妥善解决被征地农民的基本生活和长远生计问题，保持社会稳定，促进城镇化健康发展，根据《国务院办公厅转发劳动保障部关于做好被征地农民就业培训和社会保障工作指导意见的通知》（国办发[2006]29号）、《劳动保障部、国土资源部关于切实做好被征地农民社会保障工作有关问题的通知》（劳社部发[2007]14号）、《湖北省人民政府办公厅关于做好被征地农民就业培训和社会保障工作的意见》（鄂政办发[2009]39号）精神，结合我市实际，制定本办法。

第二条本办法适用于襄樊市市区（指襄城区、樊城区、高新技术产业开发区和隆中风景管理区）被征地农民就业培训和社会保障工作。

第三条本办法所称被征地农民，是指以耕地作为家庭基本生活来源，因农村集体土地被征用导致失去全部或大部分土地，且在征地时享有农村集体土地承包权的在册农业人口。

第四条充分尊重农民意愿，允许被征地农民自愿选择适合自己的社会保障方式，积极鼓励和引导被征地农民参加社会保障。

第五条以区为单位，被征地农民社会保障所缴费用由个人、集体经济组织和政府共同负担。

被征地农民社会养老保障水平随城市居民最低生活保障标准的调整而调整。

第六条以区为单位，建立预存一定的征地补偿款制度，实行“先保后征”。征地时，先将被征地农民社会保障资金全额划入区级农村社会保险局社保资金专户，然后办理落实被征地农民社会保障情况的审查意见和相关手续。

第七条市劳动和社会保障行政主管部门负责全市被征地农民就业培训和社会保障的组织实施、宣传、检查、监督等工作。

各城区政府、开发区（风景区）管委会劳动和社会保障主管部门（以下简称区级劳动保障主管部门）负责本区被征地农民就业培训和社会保障工作；区农村社会保险经办机构具体负责被征地农民养老保障资金的收缴、手续办理、待遇核定、资金发放，以及基金保值增值运营、监督管理，审查被征地农民社会保障对象、项目、标准以及费用筹集办法等工作。

市国土资源、财政、民政、农业、公安、国税、地税、建设、教育、卫生等部门和被征收集体土地所在地的城区政府、开发区（风景区）管委会、乡（镇）政府、街道办事处、村（居）民委员会，应根据各自的职责，配合、支持劳动保障部门做好与被征地农民就业培训和社会保障管理相关的各项工作。

第二章保障对象和认定程序

第八条凡2006年4月10日后土地被依法征收，且征地时持有《家庭土地承包合同》和《土地承包经营权证》，在户籍所在的征地村（居）民委员会履行了相关义务、被征地后家庭人均占有耕地不足以保障基本生活的，为保障对象。

征地时，参军、就学、外出务工等人员，其户籍在被征地所在村（居）民委员会且履行了相关义务，应纳入被征地农民养老保障范围。

第九条符合被征地农民养老保障条件的，由被征地农民个人提出申请，村民委员会或居民委员会初审，将《被征地农民养老保障人员花名册》、《被征地农民养老保障人员汇总表》报乡(镇)、街道办事处审查，并在征地所在村组或社区公示两周后无异议的，乡(镇)、街道办事处再将人员名册、公安部门出具的户籍证明和本人身份证（复印件），报国土资源管理部门和区劳动保障部门审核确定,并报区人民政府（开发区、风景区管委会）备案。

第三章培训与就业

第十条大力促进被征地农民就业。坚持劳动者自主择业、市场调节就业、政府促进就业的方针，多渠道扩大就业范围。坚持市场导向的就业机制，统筹城乡就业，多渠道开发就业岗位，改善就业环境，鼓励引导各类企业、事业单位和社区吸纳被征地农民就业。城市规划区内的被征地农民要纳入统一的失业登记制度和城乡一体化的就业服务体系，按规定享受促进就业相关扶持政策。

第十一条贯彻落实《中华人民共和国就业促进法》（主席令第70号）和《省人民政府关于做好推动创业促进就业工作的通知》（鄂政发[2008]60号）精神，被征地农民可享受就业培训各方面的优惠政策：

（一）劳动保障部门要为劳动年龄段内的被征地农民提供免费职业介绍服务；

（二）被征地农民在劳动年龄段内有就业愿望且尚未就业的，可依照规定享受有关补贴；

（三）被征地农民自主创业、自主择业的，可向劳动就业管理部门申请享受小额贷款担保基金和微利项目的小额担保贷款贴息，以及扶持公共就业服务等。

（四）落实被征地农民就业培训所需资金。按照《省人民政府关于做好推动创业促进就业工作的通知》和阳光工程、雨露计划的相关政策规定，分别从就业资金和阳光工程、雨露计划专项资金中列支。

第四章社会保障

第十二条将被征地农民划分为三个年龄段纳入基本生活保障，分类享受养老保障待遇。其年龄的认定，以市国土资源部门下发的征地告知书时间为准。

第十三条年龄在16周岁以下（不含16周岁）的被征地人员，按征地补偿有关规定一次性发给安置补助费，达到就业年龄或学习毕业后，作为城镇新生就业力量，参加相关社会保障。

第十四条年满16周岁且男未满60周岁、女未满55周岁的被征地农民，未实现就业的，以征地时上年度本市职工年平均工资的20%，按15年计算，一次性向区农村社会保险经办机构缴纳养老保障费用。

第十五条男年满60周岁、女年满55周岁以上的被征地农民，以征地时上年度本市职工年平均工资的20%，按12年计算，一次性向区农村社会保险经办机构缴纳养老保障费用。

第十六条被征地农民养老保障资金的筹集：个人和集体负担缴费总额的70%，从土地补偿费、安置补助费和集体经济收入中安排；政府负担缴费总额的30%，从国有土地有偿使用收入中安排。安置补助费、土地补偿费和集体经济收入不足以缴纳个人和集体经济组织承担部分的，由当地政府从国有土地有偿使用收入中解决。

个人和集体缴纳被征地农民养老保障费用后，土地补偿费尚有结余的，再由个人和集体按国家、省、市有关规定分配。

第十七条参加被征地农民养老保障的人员，从男年满60周岁、女年满55周岁的次月开始，按月享受养老保障待遇，其待遇按本市当年城市居民最低生活保障标准的120%计发。

第十八条农村社会保险经办机构为每个参加被征地农民养老保障人员建立社会统筹帐户与个人账户,并向参保人员发放《襄樊市被征地人员养老保障手册》。

第十九条被征地农民个人和集体经济组织缴纳的费用记入养老保障个人账户，政府负担的部分记入养老保障统筹账户。

个人账户资金主要用于支付被征地农民按月享受的养老保障待遇。

统筹账户资金主要用于被征地农民养老保障个人账户资金支付完毕后应继续支付的费用以及养老保障待遇调整所需资金。

养老保障统筹账户资金不足时，当地政府应从土地出让收入或其他财政资金中安排。

第二十条已参加被征地农民养老保障人员，到城镇就业并参加了城镇企业职工基本养老保险，其缴费年限和个人账户资金可进行折算，按有关规定进行养老保险关系转移和接续（具体办法另行规定）；享受城镇企业职工基本养老保险待遇后不再享受被征地农民养老保障待遇。

实行新型农村社会养老保险制度的地方，要将被征地农民纳入新型农保范围，做好被征地农民养老保障制度的衔接，原已参加被征地农民养老保障的，其个人账户并入新型农保的个人账户，享受新型农保待遇后不再享受被征地农民养老保险待遇。

第二十一条参加了被征地农民养老保障，尚未达到享受养老保障待遇年龄且家庭生活确有困难，符合农村居民最低生活保障条件的，应将其纳入农村最低生活保障范围。

被征地农民转为城市居民后，尚未达到享受养老保障待遇年龄且家庭生活确有困难，符合城市居民最低生活保障条件的，应将其纳入城市居民最低生活保障范围。

第二十二条被征地农民参加养老保障后因故死亡的，区别不同情况，按以下规定办理：

（一）享受养老保障待遇前死亡的，其个人账户余额可一次性返还给其法定继承人或指定受益人，即终止享受养老保障关系；

（二）享受养老保障待遇后死亡的，其个人账户余额一次性返还给其法定继承人或指定受益人；个人账户已领取完的，不再返还，终止享受养老保障关系。

第五章资金的监督和管理

第二十三条被征地农民养老保障资金由市财政部门会同市国土资源部门审核后在征地过程中一次性统一划拨，直接进入财政部门设立的农村社会保险经办机构资金专户，单独建帐，专款专用。

农村社会保险经办机构应根据被征地农民社会保障情况，向财政部门按月报送发放计划，财政部门审核后及时将资金转入农保经办机构在银行设立的被征地农民社会保障资金支出帐户，确保资金按时足额发放。农保经办机构负责基本生活保障专户资金管理，按照国家现行养老保险基金存款利率的规定计息，按规定不计征各种税、费，增值部分分别并入被征地农民养老保障个人账户或统筹账户。财政部门负责拨付农村社会保险机构专项工作经费。

第二十四条任何部门都不得挤占、转借、挪用和截留被征地农民养老保障资金，并接受审计部门监督。

第六章附则

第二十五条本办法施行前被征地农民个人安置补助费不足以维持基本生活，符合农村最低生活保障条件的，应纳入农村最低生活保障范围；已经转为城市居民，符合城市居民最低生活保障条件的，应纳入城市最低生活保障范围。

第二十六条本办法由市劳动和社会保障行政主管部门负责解释。各县（市）和襄阳区可按照有关规定制定本地被征地农民就业培训和社会保障实施办法。

第二十七条本办法自2009年7月16日起施行。



Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992