美国法上对管制性征收判定标准的争论已历经了一个半世纪。1870至1978年间，联邦最高法院确立了判定管制性征收的三大主要原则（物理侵入，有害使用，及经济损失原则）。但由于三大原则较为刚性且冲突不断，1978年多因素平衡规则应运而生，通过融合之前的三大原则，弥合其间矛盾，成为了联邦最高法院判定管制性征收的主要标准。但1978至2000年间，联邦最高法院尝试将三大原则再次独立出来，确立三种绝对规则（永久物理占有，完全经济损失，及实际促进规则）以排除柔性的多因素平衡规则之适用。但2000年之后，联邦最高法院对三大绝对规则进行了严格限缩，多因素平衡规则重归主导。这种演变的原因在于多因素平衡规则能与权利束选取问题相容。当今美国法上判定管制性征收的分析进路已比较明晰。

The debate on regulatory takings in the U.S. jurisprudence has lasted for more than 150 years. From 1870 to 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court set three basic principles (physical invasion, noxious use, and diminution of value) to determine when regulatory takings are constituted. But as these three principles are rather categorical and contradicted each other incessantly, the multi-factor balancing rule was established in 1978 to mitigate such contradictions by absorbing these three principles. However, from 1978 to 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court tried to make the three principles independent and categorical again. It established three per se rules (permanent physical occupation, deprive of all economic-viability, and substantially advance) to exclude the application of the rather flexible multi-factor balancing rule under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, after 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled stringent restrictions on the applications of the three per se rules, and multi-factor balancing rule reclaimed its primacy to determine when regulatory takings are constituted. The reason behind the development of the rules is that the multi-factor balancing rule is compatible with the “parceling problem”. The current analytical approach to delineate regulatory takings is fairly clear.

[1] Ackerman B. (1978). Private property and the Constitution. Yale University Press,.

[2] Allison Dunham (1962). Griggs v. Allegheny County in Perspective: Thirty Years of Supreme Court Expropriation Law. SuP. CT. REV. 63.

[3] Carol M. Rose (1984). Mahon Reconstructed: Why the Takings Issue is Still a Muddle. 57 S. CAL. L. REV. 561.

[4] Eagle S J. (2015). Regulatory Takings. LexisNexis,

[5] Eagle S J. (2013). Four-Factor Penn Central Regulatory Takings Test. The Penn St. L. Rev.

[6] Epstein R A. (2011). Bundle-of-Rights Theory as a Bulwark Against Statist Conceptions of Private Property. Econ Journal Watch, 8(3):223-235.

[7] Epstein R A. (1985). Takings. Harvard University Press.

[8] Fenster M. (2014). Substantive Due Process by Another Name: Koontz, Exactions, and the Regulatory Takings Doctrine. Touro L. Rev., 2014, 30: 403.

[9] Fischel W A. (1995). Regulatory takings: Law, Economics, and Politics. Harvard University Press,.

[10] Humbach J A. (1981). Unifying Theory for the Just-Compensation Cases: Takings, Regulation and Public Use, A. Rutgers L. Rev., 1981, 34: 243.

[11] Miceli T J, Segerson K. (1994). Regulatory takings: When should compensation be paid?. The Journal of Legal Studies, 1994, 23(2): 749-776.

[12] Michelman F. (1987). Takings. Columbia Law Review, 88(8): 1600-1629.

[13] Michelman F I. (1967). Property, utility, and fairness: Comments on the ethical foundations of" just compensation" law. Harvard Law Review, 1165-1258

[14] Rubenfeld J. (1993). Usings. Yale Law Journal, 102(5):1077-1163.

[15] Sax J L. (2010). Land Use Regulation: Time to Think about Fairness. Natural Resources Journal, 50(2):455-470.

[16] Sax J L. (1993). Property Rights and the Economy of Nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. 45 Stan. L. Rev. 1433, 45(5):1433-1455.

[17] Sax J L. Takings (1971), Private Property and Public Rights. 81 Yale. L.J. 149, 81(2):149-186.

[18] Sax J L. (1964) Takings and the Police Power. Yale Law Journal, 74(1):36-76.

[19]卜炜玮. 中国财产征收制度研究[D]. 清华大学, 2008.

[20] 陈新民:《财产权的限制与公益征收之概念——美国法上的探讨》, 《宪法基本权利之基本理论》(上册)[M]，第461—494页。

[21] 房绍坤, 王洪平. 从财产权保障视角论我国的宪法财产权条款[J]. 法律科学: 西北政法学院学报, 2011, 29(2): 103-112.

[22] 胡建淼, 吴亮. 美国管理性征收中公共利益标准的最新发展——以林戈尔案的判决为中心的考察[J]. 环球法律评论, 2008, 30(6):20-27.

[23] 刘连泰. 确定“管制性征收”的坐标系[J]. 法治研究, 2014, (3):31-43.

[24] 彭涛. 论美国管制征收的认定标准[J]. 行政法学研究, 2011, (3).

[25] 王洪平, 房绍坤. 论管制性征收的构成标准——以美国法之研究为中心[J]. 国家检察官学院学报, 2011, (1):140-147.

[26] 张翔. 财产权的社会义务[J]. 中国社会科学, 2012, (9):100-119.