【摘要】：就形式立法而言,可以說到2010年底包括民法體系在內(nèi)的我國特色社會主義法律體系已經(jīng)形成,但從學(xué)術(shù)成熟以及理論與實(shí)踐相契合的角度來看,包括物權(quán)變動模式相關(guān)立法在內(nèi)的我國民事法律體系卻難稱完善。為避免我國1999年《合同法》第51條將處分權(quán)界定于債權(quán)行為階段所導(dǎo)致的法律適用混亂局面,按照反面解釋,最高人民法院已在2012年通過《關(guān)于審理買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律問題的解釋》第3條維護(hù)無權(quán)處分合同的效力。這也就意味著不再要求賣方在債權(quán)行為階段對標(biāo)的物具有處分權(quán),實(shí)質(zhì)上也就將處分權(quán)還原為物權(quán)變動階段的權(quán)利,即肯定物權(quán)變動階段存在獨(dú)立的單方意思表示。然而,該解釋在內(nèi)容上卻與我國立法者和主流學(xué)者關(guān)于債權(quán)形式主義的傳統(tǒng)認(rèn)知相沖突,并最終導(dǎo)致了我國物權(quán)變動模式選擇兩難處境的出現(xiàn)。 為深入論證上述觀點(diǎn)并探討我國物權(quán)變動模式的立法選擇問題,除引言與結(jié)論之外,主體由6章構(gòu)成。引言部分,在引出論題之后,闡明了所采取的主要研究方法和主要觀點(diǎn)。第1章對物權(quán)變動模式的內(nèi)涵加以明確,并對作為物權(quán)變動模式劃分基礎(chǔ)的物權(quán)行為理論進(jìn)行分析；第2-3章在綜合比較兩大法系幾種物權(quán)變動模式的確立過程和時代背景之后,分別對區(qū)分原則和抽象原則進(jìn)行合理性辨析,從準(zhǔn)據(jù)法適用角度上初步得出荷韓模式最具合理性；第4章從我國物權(quán)變動模式選擇立場出發(fā),以國際貿(mào)易適用為視野,對物權(quán)變動模式進(jìn)行由經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的博弈論到處分權(quán)性質(zhì)界定再到立法模式選擇的全方位考察,所得結(jié)論也同樣支持上述觀點(diǎn)；第5-6章在具體探討我國現(xiàn)階段物權(quán)變動模式兩難處境的現(xiàn)狀、成因、本質(zhì)等方面之后,嘗試通過運(yùn)用非形式邏輯方法理性地建構(gòu)實(shí)踐論辯平臺,結(jié)合社會學(xué)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)方法,以期推動走出兩難處境,并得出我國物權(quán)變動模式相對合理的選擇是以荷韓模式為代表的債權(quán)形式主義的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:In terms of formal legislation, it can be said that by the end of 2010, the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics, including the civil law system, had been formed, but from the point of view of academic maturity and the coincidence of theory and practice, However, China's civil law system, including legislation related to the mode of real right change, is difficult to be perfected. In order to avoid the confusion of the application of law caused by Article 51 of the contract Law of 1999, which defines the disposition right in the stage of creditor's rights, it is interpreted in the opposite way. In 2012, the Supreme people's Court adopted Article 3 of the interpretation on the legal issues applicable to hearing disputes relating to Sale and purchase contracts, which upholds the validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition. This means that the seller is no longer required to dispose of the subject matter in the act of creditor's rights stage, and in essence, the disposition right is restored to the right of real right change stage, that is to say, the independent unilateral expression of will exists in the stage of property right change. However, the interpretation conflicts with the traditional cognition of creditor's rights formalism by Chinese legislators and mainstream scholars, and finally leads to the dilemma of the choice of the mode of real right change in our country. In order to demonstrate the above views and discuss the legislative choice of the mode of real right change in our country, the main body consists of six chapters except the introduction and conclusion. In the introduction part, after introducing the topic, the main research methods and main viewpoints are expounded. In the first chapter, the connotation of the mode of real right change is clarified, and the theory of act of real right, which is the basis of dividing the mode of real right change, is analyzed. Chapter 2-3, after synthetically comparing the establishment process and background of several real right change modes in two legal systems, analyzes the rationality of distinction principle and abstract principle respectively. From the perspective of applicable law, it is concluded that the Korean model is the most reasonable. In chapter 4, from the standpoint of the mode choice of real right change in our country, taking the application of international trade as the visual field, the author studies the mode of real right change from the game theory of economics to the definition of disposition right and then to the choice of legislative mode. The conclusions also support this view; Chapter 5-6, after discussing the dilemma of the mode of real right change in our country at present, attempts to construct the practical debate platform rationally by using the method of non-formal logic, combining with the empirical method of sociology. In order to push out of the dilemma, we can draw the conclusion that the reasonable choice of the mode of real right change in our country is the formalism of creditor's rights represented by the model of Holland and Korea.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 婁愛華;;論善意取得制度中的轉(zhuǎn)讓合同效力問題——兼談《合同法》第51條與《物權(quán)法》第106條之關(guān)系[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2011年01期

2 張玉卿;;《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》的適用與解釋[J];國際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2007年03期

3 朱芝弘;;韓國民法的繼承與創(chuàng)造[J];甘肅社會科學(xué);2008年03期

4 周后春;;論物權(quán)變動模式的選擇對國際私法立法的影響[J];廣州大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年05期

5 許璐;;論意思自治于動產(chǎn)物權(quán)法律適用中的限制[J];研究生法學(xué);2013年03期

6 王利民;王俊峰;;我國物權(quán)變動模式的兩難處境及相關(guān)思考[J];大連理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2014年03期

7 曹燕飛;;論物權(quán)法的發(fā)展對國際私法的影響[J];今日南國(理論創(chuàng)新版);2008年04期

8 崔建遠(yuǎn);無權(quán)處分辨——合同法第51條規(guī)定的解釋與適用[J];法學(xué)研究;2003年01期

9 孫憲忠;;我國物權(quán)法中物權(quán)變動規(guī)則的法理評述[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年03期

10 周后春;;新物權(quán)法中的區(qū)分原則對國際私法立法的影響[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2007年12期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李軍;無權(quán)處分合同效力與物權(quán)變動模式之關(guān)聯(lián)[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號：2357550