论物债二分理论及其对民法典体系建构的影响

【作者】 魏潜；

【导师】 李永军；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文共分为五章。大陆法系以法典化为典型特征，但是在大陆法系内部却又表现出法国民法典与德国民法典两个不同的法典化方向与体系结构，即体现为法国民法典的三编制与德国民法典五编制的法典体系结构的区分。本文认为物权和债权的区分决定了德国民法典体系的结构，而对这一问题的分析应该采用一种历史和文化解释的路径，并采用分析、比较和历史解释等方法进行论证。在第一章中首先提出问题并指出研究的意义，同时对本文方法论上的基本立场以及具体的研究方法进行简要的界定和说明。本文第二章主要通过历史的方法对罗马法进行分析。主要论述罗马法上的所有权、占有、债的概念、契约制度、诉讼制度及其相互之间的制度关联，并指出罗马法上具有严格区分所有权和债的法律思想，并通过所有权取得的形式性、独立性与抽象性、占有制度和诉讼制度等予以体现和维持。尤其是通过占有和所有在法律技术上的分离以及对“交付”法律性质的阐释，解释了在市民法向万民法过渡时期出现的所有权二元结构以及绝对性所有权的相对化的原因，指出罗马法物权公示制度的缺乏正是其绝对性所有权相对化的真正原因。同时通过对罗马法债的概念的分析与类型化契约的考察、以及诉讼制度尤其是诉讼原因的分析，对其法律汇编的结构性要素及其动因做出客观的分析和说明。鉴于中世纪作为西方近代法律传统的形成时期以及与近代(公元16—18世纪)法律发展的历史延续性，为此，第二章首先对中世纪及近代的不动产所有权制度、契约制度、占有制度以及诉讼制度与罗马法相应制度进行比较分析，指出其与罗马法之间存在的巨大差异及其对近代法律思想和制度的重要意义和深远影响。本章的重点在于对中世纪及近代合意契约理论的演变与形成、尤其是合意契约理论将契约作为所有权取得的方式及将其作为近代法律系统化与法典化方法论上的意义，及其对理性法时期法典化结构与体系的影响。进而指出中世纪及近代理性法时期共同体现出来的社会本位与义务本位的法律思想，尽管已经有物权和债权区分的雏形，但是最终限制了物权和债权彻底区分的可能性。本文的第四章主要通过对物权和债权区分的理论基础与德国民法典体系的建构与形成的关系进行论述。重点阐释了康德的伦理人格主义哲学作为物权和债权区分以及德国民法典体系的内在价值基础，物权和债权的区分以及相应的法律概念与制度建构，本质上都是以人格伦理基础上的意志自由与自律为核心的主观权利的法学形式表达。在主观权利的基础上重点论述了物权和债权区分的理论基础及其意义，指出权利和义务的区分正是区分原则与抽象原则的价值基础与法学形式表达，抽象性原则是德国民法典体系建立的逻辑前提而不是逻辑结果，并在此基础上批判性的指出了部分学者对物权和债权的区分以及抽象性原则做经验性与功能性理解的误区，同时对德国民法典中物权法律制度的形成与建立以实证的方法做出了解释和说明。第五章代为结论。本章采用比较分析的方法，以德国民法典中的善意取得与取得时效制度之间存在的体系关联的分析为切入点，对德国民法典体系物法和债法的内部体系进行解释和说明，同时将其与法国民法典中相应的制度建构进行比较，指出正是绝对性与相对性的所有权观念的区分决定了德国和法国民法典体系不同的制度建构，尽管在立法技术与法律适用的精确性与确定性上存在差异，但是德国和法国民法典都在逻辑上保持了一致，并在此基础上指出日本民法典以及我国物权法草案中相应制度建构存在的理论上的矛盾与实践上的弊端。最后，笔者以私法人文主义的价值判断为出发点，从法哲学视角对现代私法危机的根源与原因进行总结性的思考，指出建立在国家权力与实证哲学基础上的各种形态的法社会学或法哲学，不仅是导致现代私法危机也是导致法学与法律本身双重虚无的真正原因。更多还原

【Abstract】 There are five chapters in this dissertation:Codification is the feature of the continental law, within which, however, manifests two different direction and constitution of codification, that is, the French three-volume civil code and the German five-volume civil code. This dissertation thinks that the distinction between the rights of the Sachenrecht from the Schuldrecht determines the structure of the German civil code. For the analysis of this point, a historical and cultural approach should be adopted. Taking such as analytical, compared and historical approach, this dissertation proposes the research and the significance of it in the first chapter. And on that basis, this dissertation defines and explains briefly the demonstration approach, basic methodological attitudes, and research methods.The second chapter mainly makes an analysis of Roman Law, using a historical positive approach. This chapter mainly discusses the property ownership, occupation, the notion of obligation, contract regulations, lawsuit regulations and their mutual relevance. On that basis, this chapter points out that the Roman Law defines precisely the notion of ownership and obligation, which are embodied and maintained by the form, independence and abstract, occupation and lawsuit regulations of obtaining the ownership. After doing this, this chapter, by the interpretation of the technical separation of occupation and ownership, and the legal nature of traditio, historically explains the dual structure in the transition from jus civile to jus gentium and the cause of the relativity of the absolute ownership, which is factually caused by the lack of the Principle of Publication in the Roman Law. In addition, this chapter, by an analysis of notion of obligation and an exploration of categorized contract in the Roman law, analyzes and explains objectively the structural elements and motives in the compilation of the Roman Law.Considering the fact that the medieval age is the formation period of the modern western legal tradition and the historical duration of the modern law’s development, the third chapter makes a comparative study of the medieval period’s system of the real estate’s ownership, contract, occupation, and lawsuit, with the relevant systems of the Roman Law. On that basis, this chapter points out that there exists a distinctive difference between the medieval Law and the Roman Law, which has significant influence on the modern legal ideas and systems. This chapter focuses on evolution and formation of the Principle of consensus in the medieval and modern times, especially on the method of obtaining ownership by contract in accordance with the Principle of consensus, and the methodological significance in modern law’s systematization and codification and the influence on the structure and system of codification in rationalism natural law of the neoteric period. Furthermore, this chapter points out that the medieval period and the modern rationalism natural law both express the legal ideas of the socialist and obligation criterion, which, in spite of it’s initial distinguishing of the owner’s right from the creditor’s right, eventually restrains the final distinguishing of the Sachenrecht from the Schuldrecht.The fourth chapter explores the relationship between the theoretical basis of the distinguishing of the Sachenrecht from the Schuldrecht, and the constitution and formation of the German civil law’s system. This chapter focuses on the interpretation of the Kant’s ethic philosophy as the basic of the intrinsic value for the distinguishing of the Sachenrecht from the Schuldrecht and the German civil law system. This chapter maintains that the distinguishing of the Sachenrecht from the Schuldrecht and the corresponding legal notion and constitution are essentially legal expression of the subjective rights that have ethic free-will and self-discipline as their core ideas. On the basis of the subjective rights, this chapter emphasizes the theoretical basis and the significance of the distinguishing of the owner’s right and the creditor’s right. The author points out that the distinguishing of right from obligation is exactly the value basis and legal expression for Principle of Dissent and Abstract .and that Principle of Abstract is logic premise of German civil law rather than its logic conclusion. Based on the previous exploration, the author critically points out that some of the scholars wrongly interpret the distinguishing of the Sachenrecht from the Schuldrecht and the abstract principle as the experientialism and functionality. In addition, this chapter makes an exploration and illustration of the formation and establishment of the law of the property rights by a historical positivism approach.The final chapter will be the conclusion. In this part, the author adopt a comparative approach, first makes an analysis of the relationship between the systems of Gutglaebiger Erwerb and Ersitzung. after doing this, the author explains the internal system of the German Sachenrecht and Schuldrecht, and compares it with the corresponding system in French civil law. On that basis, this chapter points out that it is the distinguishing of the concept of the absolute right from the relative right that determines the different system construction of the German civil law and the French civil law. Despite the fact the German civil law and the French civil law differs in legislative technique and accuracy and coherence of the legislative practice .the two civil laws are consistent in logic. However, in the corresponding Japanese civil law and the draft property law of our country, there exist a contradiction in theory and drawbacks in practice.As a conclusion, taking opinion of the humanism value as the starting point, summarizes and explores briefly the origin and the final cause of the modern private property law crisis from the perspective of legal philosophy, and points out that the various legal sociology and philosophy, which are based on the Positivism philosophy, leads not only to crisis of the private law but also to dual nihilism of jurisprudence and law.更多还原