摘要
我国物权法规定了防御性请求权,其与《民法通则》《侵权责任法》《民法总则》相关规定并不统一,存在如何衔接的问题。从立法论上而言,应认可妨害排除请求权与妨害防止请求权;从解释论而言,应认可停止侵害乃针对侵害行为,从而可与排除妨害与消除危险并列适用。在物债二分法之下,应坚持物权请求权与侵权损害赔偿请求权之区分,大而广的侵权请求权并非为最优选择。防御性请求权的适用应限于妨害源的排除,在存有过错意味的情况下,应适当扩张认定妨害源的范围。
The property law stipulates the defensive claim,which is not unified with the relevant provisions of the General Principles of Civil Law,the Tort Liability Law and the General Rules of Civil Law.This will lead to a problem of how to link up the system.From the perspective of legislation,we should recognize the claims to exclude and prevent nuisance.From the perspective of interpretation,we should recognize that stopping infringement is aimed at infringement,which can be applied in conjunction with exclusion of nuisance and elimination of risks.Under the premise of distinguishing between property and obligation,the distinction between the claim of property right and the claim for damages in tort law should be persisted,and the mode of a large and extensive tort claim is not the best choice.The application of defensive claim should be limited to the exclusion of nuisance sources.In the case of fault-doped,the scope of identifying nuisance sources should be appropriately expanded.
出处
《四川大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第5期57-65,共9页
Journal of Sichuan University：Philosophy and Social Science Edition
基金
2018年度国家社会科学基金一般项目“侵权财产损害赔偿的‘边’与‘界’研究”(18BFX116)、教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“中国侵权责任法改革研究”(16JJD820015)。
