摘要
法律的体系结构问题是一个按一定逻辑联系将法律规范加以排列组合的问题。各国民法典 (包括其物权编 )体系结构上的差异 ,原于体系设计者选择的逻辑标准不同。法国法系国家在设计其民法典 (包括其物权编 )的体系结构时 ,更注重调整对象标准 ;而德国法系国家在设计其民法典 (包括其物权编 )的体系结构时 ,则更倾向于法权形式标准。本文作者主张以调整对象为标准来分配物权法与债法的内容 ,将作用于商品交换领域的抵押、质押、留置及让与担保等担保制度纳入债法规定 ,而不照搬德国法系国家的作法纳入物权法规定。对物权法内部的体系结构 ,本文作者主张除总则外 ,分所有权、用益物权、相邻权、占有与登记四个组成部分 ,以分别调整物的归属关系、物的用益关系、不动产相邻关系及无本权的动产占有人、不动产物权登记名义人与物之本权人之间的关系。本文作者认为 ,这一体系结构有利于明确物权法内各制度各自作用的社会经济生活领域 ,张扬它们各自不同的目的和功能 ,实现它们各自不同的价值。
The problem of the system and structure of law is, in effect, a legal totality put together according to the legal norms in a logic order. The fact that the differentiation of different countries' Civil Codes is actually caused on account of different logic standards adopted by its system designer. Countries of French legal family, for instance, pay more attention to the standard of adjustment object when designing the system and structure of Civil Code including the section of law relating to rights over things, whereas, countries of German legal family have tendencies of legal right formal standard when designing the system and structure of Civil Code including the section of law relating to rights over things. The author of this essay advocates assigning the contents of law relating to rights over things and law of obligation by the standard of adjustment object, putting guarantee systems applied in the field of goods exchange, such as mortgage, pledge, lien, cession guarantee, in the law of obligation for stipulation, instead of following countries of German legal family putting that in the law relating to rights over things for stipulation. As to the internal system and structure of the law relating to rights over things, the author ' essay advocates that, apart from the general rules, it can be divided into four parts i.e. ownership, usufruct, neighboring right, possession and enrollment, to adjust thing-belonging-to relations, thing usufruct relations, real estate neighboring relations, and relations of estate possessor without ownership, enrollment name person of real estate and the owner of things respectively. The author thinks that such system and structure is conducive to define different social and economic life fields adjusted by the different systems of the law relating to rights over things, to make their different aims and functions public, and to realize their own different values.
出处
《现代法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2002年第4期12-22,共11页
Modern Law Science
