論占有之性質(zhì)
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-05 09:38
【摘要】：隨著現(xiàn)代社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展,物資財(cái)富的極大豐富,財(cái)產(chǎn)的流轉(zhuǎn)利用關(guān)系越來(lái)越受到關(guān)注。占有,不僅是一種物對(duì)人的“歸屬性”關(guān)系,也是一種人與物的“利用性”關(guān)系。不論占有是作為整個(gè)法律權(quán)利體系,特別是物權(quán)體系的基礎(chǔ)和前提,還是作為其必要的補(bǔ)充,占有制度的完善對(duì)于我國(guó)法律體系的完善有著重要的意義這一點(diǎn)毋庸諱言。但是我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》關(guān)于占有制度的規(guī)定卻顯得十分單薄、簡(jiǎn)陋,在占有的基本概念、構(gòu)成,占有的相關(guān)推定、保護(hù)規(guī)則等方面都存在缺陷,本文認(rèn)為這與包括占有性質(zhì)在內(nèi)的占有基礎(chǔ)問(wèn)題的研究未能形成一致意見不無(wú)關(guān)系。關(guān)于占有的性質(zhì),占有事實(shí)說(shuō)和占有權(quán)利說(shuō)兩種主要的學(xué)說(shuō)觀點(diǎn)爭(zhēng)鋒相對(duì),爭(zhēng)論不休。除此之外,理論界還有權(quán)能說(shuō)、法律關(guān)系說(shuō)、法益說(shuō)等不同的學(xué)說(shuō)觀點(diǎn)。以上學(xué)說(shuō)各有其支持理由,要在其中選出最為恰當(dāng)?shù)暮虾鯇?shí)際的理論觀點(diǎn)殊為不易。為了對(duì)占有性質(zhì)進(jìn)行研究,首先需要對(duì)研究過(guò)程中可能涉及到的相關(guān)要素,包括占有的構(gòu)成、概念、權(quán)利等進(jìn)行厘定,而這些要素中也包含了占有性質(zhì)的相關(guān)線索。通過(guò)該部分的分析,可以發(fā)現(xiàn)占有的觀念化對(duì)占有性質(zhì)學(xué)說(shuō)爭(zhēng)議所造成的巨大影響,占有因觀念化而十分類似于權(quán)利。但是經(jīng)過(guò)分析,可以發(fā)現(xiàn)占有的觀念化與權(quán)利的觀念化之間存在明顯的區(qū)別,其觀念化依然表現(xiàn)出強(qiáng)烈的事實(shí)色彩。而占有可以通過(guò)不法行為取得也強(qiáng)烈暗示著占有的事實(shí)屬性。本部分的研究為后續(xù)占有性質(zhì)分析的平臺(tái)和基礎(chǔ)。第二部分對(duì)占有的歷史發(fā)展脈絡(luò)進(jìn)行了梳理,分別涉及了羅馬法和日耳曼法這兩大現(xiàn)代占有制度的源頭,試圖通過(guò)對(duì)歷史的研究整理出各個(gè)理論學(xué)說(shuō)的歷史基礎(chǔ),發(fā)現(xiàn)占有性質(zhì)的相關(guān)線索。經(jīng)過(guò)分析,將占有視為權(quán)利可以被視為多種法律現(xiàn)象被混同以及權(quán)利觀念不健全的結(jié)果。同時(shí)需要指出的是,法律的生命在于當(dāng)下,在于活生生的社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀,而不在于歷史,不在于厚厚的史書之中。因而對(duì)于歷史的研究?jī)H能是參考性的、啟發(fā)性的,對(duì)于占有性質(zhì)的認(rèn)識(shí),最終還是需要回歸于占有本身,回歸于社會(huì)的發(fā)展?fàn)顩r和現(xiàn)實(shí)需求。第三部分中對(duì)占有性質(zhì)的各個(gè)學(xué)說(shuō)進(jìn)行了辨析,并進(jìn)一步的對(duì)日本“所有權(quán)”進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)單的論述。各個(gè)學(xué)說(shuō)之中,事實(shí)說(shuō)、權(quán)利說(shuō)屬于更為主流的觀點(diǎn),權(quán)利說(shuō)試圖通過(guò)占有的歷史、占有的保護(hù)、占有的形式、占有的規(guī)則等方面對(duì)占有屬于權(quán)利加以論證,但是經(jīng)過(guò)分析,上述理由均不能成立,因而占有應(yīng)當(dāng)回歸占有事實(shí)這一最為質(zhì)樸的理論觀點(diǎn)。同時(shí),占有既然不能夠成立為權(quán)利,則應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于受法律保護(hù)的事實(shí)。而該事實(shí)既然非為權(quán)利而為何受到法律的保護(hù)值得研究。經(jīng)過(guò)分析,占有受保護(hù)是基于多種原因的結(jié)果,而非以定性為權(quán)利為必要,從而徹底否定了占有權(quán)利說(shuō)的必要性。第四部分中對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行占有制度所存在的缺陷從占有性質(zhì)角度出發(fā)進(jìn)行了整理,并從占有的價(jià)值角度說(shuō)明了對(duì)占有制度進(jìn)行完善的必要性。此后,對(duì)我國(guó)未來(lái)占有制度的完善從占有的性質(zhì)、構(gòu)成,占有的推定規(guī)則,占有的保護(hù)以及否定間接占有、準(zhǔn)占有等角度提出了一些粗淺的建議,以期拋磚引玉。最終與第五部分對(duì)全文進(jìn)行了總結(jié)�？傮w而言,經(jīng)過(guò)分析,占有事實(shí)說(shuō)是更為可取的理論觀點(diǎn),在我國(guó)未來(lái)的立法完善中,應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持占有事實(shí)說(shuō)的觀點(diǎn),在堅(jiān)持占有屬于事實(shí)的同時(shí),明確宣告對(duì)占有加以完善的保護(hù)。以此,保持占有制度乃至整個(gè)法律體系的適恰。否則,占有制度將陷于混亂,對(duì)于占有之保護(hù)也并無(wú)特別的助益。
[Abstract]:With the development of modern social economy and the richness of material wealth, the relationship between the circulation and utilization of property is becoming more and more concerned. Possession is not only a "attribute to attribute" relationship of a kind of thing, but also a "utilization" relationship between people and things. No matter possession is the basis and premise of the whole legal system, especially the real right system, As a necessary supplement, the perfection of the possession system is of great significance to the perfection of the legal system of our country. However, the provisions of the property law on possession system appear very thin, simple, and have defects in the basic concepts, the constitution of the possession, the relevant presumption of possession, and the rules of protection. This article holds that the study of the basic question of possession, including the nature of possession, is not unrelated. The nature of possession, the theory of possession and the right of possession are the two main doctrines of the argument, and the argument is undisputable. In addition, the theorists have different doctrines, such as the right to say, the legal relation, the legal interest, and so on. The above theory has its support, and it is not easy to choose the most appropriate theoretical viewpoint in which it is appropriate. In order to study the nature of possession, it is necessary to define the relevant elements that may be involved in the study, including the composition, concept, and rights of the possessor, and the possessability of these elements. Through the analysis of this part, we can find the great influence caused by the conceptualization of possession to the dispute of the doctrine of possession, and the possession is quite similar to the right. But after analysis, it can be found that the conceptualization of possession and the conceptualization of rights are distinctly different, and their conceptions are still strong. The study of this part is the platform and foundation of the analysis of the following possession. The second part of the history of the historical development of possession is combed, respectively, the source of the two modern possessive systems of Rome law and riemannan law, respectively. Through the study of history, the historical basis of theory and the clues of possession are found. After analysis, possession is regarded as a result of which rights can be regarded as a mixture of legal phenomena and unsound ideas of rights. It is also to be pointed out that the life of the law lies in the present, and the living society is present. It does not lie in history, not in the thick history books. Therefore, the study of history can only be a reference, enlightening, and for the understanding of the nature of possession, in the end, it needs to return to the possession itself and return to the social development and the actual needs. In the third part, the theories of the possessive nature are identified and entered. One step is to briefly discuss the "ownership" of Japan. Among the various doctrines, the facts say that the right theory is a more mainstream view, and the right to argue about the rights of possession through the history of possession, the protection of possession, the form of possession, the rules of possession, and so on. Therefore, it is the most simple theoretical point of view that it should return to possession of the fact. At the same time, the fact that possession is not established as right should belong to the fact that the law is protected. The fact that the fact is not for right and why the protection of the law is worth studying. In the fourth part, the defects of the current possession system in our country are sorted out from the angle of possession, and the necessity of perfecting the possession system is explained from the point of view of the value of possession. After that, the perfection of our country's future possession system is taken up. Some of the nature, the constitution, the presumption of possession, the protection of possession, the negation of the indirect possession, the quasi possession, and so on, put forward some shallow suggestions, so as to give a brief introduction to the full text. Finally, the fifth part of the full text is summed up. In the meantime, we should insist on the view of possession of the fact, and make clear the protection of the perfection of possession while holding the possession of the facts, so as to maintain the proper right of the possession system and the whole legal system. Otherwise, the system of possession will be in chaos, and there is no special benefit for the protection of possession.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2
本文編號(hào)：2165393
[Abstract]:With the development of modern social economy and the richness of material wealth, the relationship between the circulation and utilization of property is becoming more and more concerned. Possession is not only a "attribute to attribute" relationship of a kind of thing, but also a "utilization" relationship between people and things. No matter possession is the basis and premise of the whole legal system, especially the real right system, As a necessary supplement, the perfection of the possession system is of great significance to the perfection of the legal system of our country. However, the provisions of the property law on possession system appear very thin, simple, and have defects in the basic concepts, the constitution of the possession, the relevant presumption of possession, and the rules of protection. This article holds that the study of the basic question of possession, including the nature of possession, is not unrelated. The nature of possession, the theory of possession and the right of possession are the two main doctrines of the argument, and the argument is undisputable. In addition, the theorists have different doctrines, such as the right to say, the legal relation, the legal interest, and so on. The above theory has its support, and it is not easy to choose the most appropriate theoretical viewpoint in which it is appropriate. In order to study the nature of possession, it is necessary to define the relevant elements that may be involved in the study, including the composition, concept, and rights of the possessor, and the possessability of these elements. Through the analysis of this part, we can find the great influence caused by the conceptualization of possession to the dispute of the doctrine of possession, and the possession is quite similar to the right. But after analysis, it can be found that the conceptualization of possession and the conceptualization of rights are distinctly different, and their conceptions are still strong. The study of this part is the platform and foundation of the analysis of the following possession. The second part of the history of the historical development of possession is combed, respectively, the source of the two modern possessive systems of Rome law and riemannan law, respectively. Through the study of history, the historical basis of theory and the clues of possession are found. After analysis, possession is regarded as a result of which rights can be regarded as a mixture of legal phenomena and unsound ideas of rights. It is also to be pointed out that the life of the law lies in the present, and the living society is present. It does not lie in history, not in the thick history books. Therefore, the study of history can only be a reference, enlightening, and for the understanding of the nature of possession, in the end, it needs to return to the possession itself and return to the social development and the actual needs. In the third part, the theories of the possessive nature are identified and entered. One step is to briefly discuss the "ownership" of Japan. Among the various doctrines, the facts say that the right theory is a more mainstream view, and the right to argue about the rights of possession through the history of possession, the protection of possession, the form of possession, the rules of possession, and so on. Therefore, it is the most simple theoretical point of view that it should return to possession of the fact. At the same time, the fact that possession is not established as right should belong to the fact that the law is protected. The fact that the fact is not for right and why the protection of the law is worth studying. In the fourth part, the defects of the current possession system in our country are sorted out from the angle of possession, and the necessity of perfecting the possession system is explained from the point of view of the value of possession. After that, the perfection of our country's future possession system is taken up. Some of the nature, the constitution, the presumption of possession, the protection of possession, the negation of the indirect possession, the quasi possession, and so on, put forward some shallow suggestions, so as to give a brief introduction to the full text. Finally, the fifth part of the full text is summed up. In the meantime, we should insist on the view of possession of the fact, and make clear the protection of the perfection of possession while holding the possession of the facts, so as to maintain the proper right of the possession system and the whole legal system. Otherwise, the system of possession will be in chaos, and there is no special benefit for the protection of possession.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 門獻(xiàn)敏;;占有制度的法律價(jià)值定位及其立法完善[J];平原大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期
2 李玉英;;從羅馬法中的占有保護(hù)談我國(guó)占有制度的完善[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年32期
3 韓文成;占有制度探析[J];河北法學(xué);2001年05期
4 王超海;構(gòu)建我國(guó)占有制度的思考[J];長(zhǎng)沙大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期
5 江涌;占有制度及其刑法功用[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年05期
6 鐘琪;試論占有制度[J];華東船舶工業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年01期
7 王俊霞;從一起侵權(quán)案談我國(guó)的占有制度[J];前沿;2002年04期
8 全永波;論我國(guó)民法對(duì)占有制度的發(fā)展與完善[J];中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年05期
9 劉瑜;債權(quán)準(zhǔn)占有制度的理解和適用——兼評(píng)“使用偽造信用卡冒領(lǐng)存款”案[J];法律適用;2003年Z1期
10 張東明;論占有制度的價(jià)值[J];前沿;2003年03期
相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條
1 郭如璞;占有的理論及立法[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2008年
2 朱冰邋貴州大學(xué)法學(xué)院講師;獨(dú)特的物權(quán)法占有制度[N];貴州日?qǐng)?bào);2007年
3 朱健;科學(xué)社會(huì)主義理論不可能否定[N];社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2001年
4 商鵬亮;物權(quán)法中的占有制度[N];中國(guó)審計(jì)報(bào);2005年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 楊佳紅;民法占有制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條
1 解明;無(wú)權(quán)占有保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2015年
2 王鑫晶;民刑關(guān)系視角下占有的法律問(wèn)題研究[D];天津商業(yè)大學(xué);2015年
3 蔡雨瑩;民法占有制度研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2015年
4 姚應(yīng)晨;論占有之性質(zhì)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年
5 江河;間接占有制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年
6 譚妮;占有制度研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2008年
7 張茜;占有制度研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2008年
8 張喻忻;論占有制度的價(jià)值[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年
9 周海龍;論我國(guó)占有制度的立法現(xiàn)狀及完善[D];延邊大學(xué);2010年
10 闖娜;占有制度研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2010年
，本文編號(hào)：2165393
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2165393.html
最近更新
教材專著
