对我国而言，授权资本制是一个舶来品，主要依靠比较法研究。尽管国内学界对其研究较早，且不乏关于其概念、核心要素、制度优缺点和规则构建的研究成果，但是目前仍较缺乏对授权资本制从诞生至今在全球各国宏观演进历程的观察，缺乏对其在不同国家内部演进历程的纵向梳理和不同国家之间制度规则差异的横向比较。我国就公司资本制度构建起了一个纷繁复杂的概念体系，但事实上全球不同法域中授权资本制的基础概念存在语义差异，且国内目前对授权资本制核心要素的界定，同域外制度运行现实存在一定出入，确有重新检视的必要。授权资本制度内在的法律关系、具体制度内容、引入该制度的收益与成本以及我国授权资本规则的具体构建方式，均依赖于对域外授权资本制度演进历史与运行现实的归纳概括和抽象提炼。本文采用规范分析法、比较分析法和文献分析法，对于英国历年公司法案、美国 1950 年、 1984 年和 2016 年《示范商业公司法案》、澳大利亚公司法案、法国商法典、德国公司法、日本公司法等正式、非正式法律渊源，以及国内外学者的著作、研究文献等进行研读、比较、分析后发现：最初的授权资本概念发源于英国，经历了从国王特许授权、法律核准授权到股东会授权的内涵变迁。近代授权资本制度萌芽于 1860 年后的英国，发展、成熟于 20 世纪上半叶的美国，此后逐渐为全球各国的公司资本制度所吸纳、融合，并在各自本土化实践中不断发展和创新，呈现出异常丰富的制度形态。授权资本制首先是作为一项具体的制度模块和若干法律规则而存在的，犹如一块适配性极强、具有极大制度张力的“积木”，同其他相关资本规则一起，共同构筑起一国公司资本制度体系的“城堡”。授权资本制度以“授权发行股份”为核心要素和概念基础，内在地建立起公司权力机关和管理层之间委托授权的法律关系。其制度内容包括授权有效期间、授权可发行股份种类和数量、“再授权”规则、授权的决定、变动、撤销和终止等，同时与原股东利益保护、公司股权结构和控制权稳定、公司资本事项的记载、修订和信息披露等紧密相关。授权资本制度具备提升股份发行效率的制度优势，可用于融资、并购重组和对抗敌意收购，但可能产生较高的代理成本。各国授权资本制度构建的核心在于如何更好地平衡安全与效率的法律价值。上述发现对于我国授权资本制度的构建不无启发。

For China, the authorized capital system is an imported product and mainly relies on comparative law studies. Although it has been studied by the domestic academic community earlier, and there is no lack of research results on its concept, core elements, advantages and disadvantages and the construction ways of rules, there is still a lack of observation on the macro evolution of the authorized capital system from its birth to thepresent in various countries around the world, and a lack of vertical combing of its evolution in different countries as well as a horizontal comparison of the differences in rules between different countries. China has built up a complicated conceptual system for the corporate capital system, but in fact, there are semantic differences in the concepts underlying the authorized capital system in different jurisdictions around the world, and the current definition of the core elements of the authorized capital system in China is somewhat different from the operational reality of the system in foreign countries, so there is a need to re-examine it. The legal relationship inherent in the authorized capital system, the specific content of the system, the benefits and costs of introducing the system and the specific way of constructing the authorized capital rules in China all depend on the inductive generalization and abstraction of the evolution history and operational realityof the authorized capital system in foreign countries.This paper adopts the normative analysis method, comparative analysis method and literature analysis method to study, compare and analyze the formal and informal legal sources such as the British company acts of the past years, the Model Business Corporation Acts of 1950, 1984 and 2016 of the United States, the Australian company act, the French commercial code, the German company law, the Japanese company law, as well as thewritings and research literature of domestic and foreign scholars. The original concept of authorized capital originated in the UK and has undergone a change in connotation fromthe royal charter, legal authorization to the authorization of the shareholders’ meeting. Themodern authorized capital system sprouted in the United Kingdom after 1860, developed and matured in the United States in the first half of the 20th century, and has since been gradually absorbed and integrated into the corporate capital systems of various countries around the world, and has been continuously developed and innovated in their respective localized practices, presenting an exceptionally rich institutional form.Authorized capital system is firstly existed as a specific system module and a number of legal rules, with strong adaptability, having a great institutional tension like the “building blocks”. Together with other relevant capital rules, it contributes to the construction of the ”castle ” of a country’s corporate capital system. The authorized capital system is based on the core element and concept of ”authorized issuance of shares”, which inherently establishes the legal relationship of delegation of authority between the corporate authority and the management. The system includes the period of validity of the authorization, the type and number of shares authorized to be issued, the rules of ”reauthorization”, the decision, change, revocation and termination of the authorization, etc. It is also closely related to the protection of the interests of the original shareholders, thestability of the company’s shareholding structure and control, and the documentation, revision and disclosure of the company’s capital matters. The authorized capital system has the institutional advantage of enhancing the efficiency of share issuance, and can be used for financing, M&A restructuring and counteracting hostile takeovers, but may incur high agency costs. The core of the construction of the authorized capital system in each country lies in how to better balance the legal values of safety and efficiency. The above findings are not without inspiration for the construction of China’s authorized capital system.