夫妻“共签共债”规范的功能优化——以家事法目的性介入模式为指引

夫妻“共签共债”模式从司法解释进入《民法典》,确立了其在民法中的重要地位。当前,我国学界对夫妻“共签共债”入典的合理性以及司法适用价值存在争议。从理论层面来看,对夫妻“共签共债”规范的争议源于在道德层面、经济层面、入典必要性层面存在的肯定说与否定说的对立;从司法实践观察,夫妻“共签共债”模式存在诉讼权利和实体权利的失衡问题。《民法典》的基本原则、主要法条、司法解释贯穿夫妻“共签共债”活动始终,而夫妻生活的亲密性、伦理性和隐私性压缩了家事法的适用空间,故目的性介入模式在夫妻“共签共债”规范的功能优化中具有适用正当性。家事法目的性介入婚姻家庭处理夫妻“共签共债”法律问题,需要接受后果主义思维的指引,从触及底线性道德、家庭内部调整功能失灵、夫妻共同体的解除与个人权利意识的觉醒三个维度由浅入深地推进。     

Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility

This paper explores how some widely studied classes of nonexpected utility models could be used in dynamic choice situations. A new "sequential consistency" condition is introduced for single-stage and multi-stage decision problems. Sequential consistency requires that if a decision maker has committed to a family of models (e.g., the multiple priors family, the rank-dependent family, or the betweenness family) then he use the same family throughout. Conditions are presented under which dynamic consistency, consequentialism, and sequential consistency can be simultaneously preserved for a nonexpected utility maximizer. An important class of applications concerns cases where the exact sequence of decisions and events, and thus the dynamic structure of the decision problem, is relevant to the decision maker. It is shown that for the multiple priors model, dynamic consistency, consequentialism, and sequential consistency can all be preserved. The result removes the argument that nonexpected utility models cannot be consistently used in dynamic choice situations. Rank-dependent and betweenness models can only be used in a restrictive manner, where deviation from expected utility is allowed in at most one stage.