论物权救济模式的选择及其依据

物权救济模式的选择,不仅仅是把物权救济方式规定在物权编还是侵权责任编的问题,还涉及丰富的、深层次的法理。侵权责任取代物权请求权的模式,会导致物权的追及效力虚化,在出卖他人之物、拾得遗失物、漂流物场合都会面临着尴尬;占有制度会面临着二难境况;侵权责任取代物权请求权的方案,为了修补自身的漏洞不惜大面积地重新界定既有的民法概念、修正既有的民法制度及其理论,结果还是捉襟见肘。总之,它只有缺点,没有任何优点,应予弃之不用。我国民法通则的既有规定并非物权立法必须沿用的充分理由,物权请求权模式在解决个别问题时显现出来的局限性,同时也是侵权责任模式解决它们时的局限性。在一个变革的时代,一个继受法律及其学说的国度,继受国、变革国的传统、习惯往往是需要破除的,改变的。就是说,传统、习惯在这种情况下大多不是界定法律概念、确定法律模式的标准。

Comments on Choice and Its Foundation of the Patterns of Remedy for Right in Rem

Choice of the patterns of remedy for right in rem is not only about the question of prescribing the remedy for real rights in the section of real rights or in the section of tort, but involves plenty of underlying theoretical problems. Adopting the mode of tortuous liability instead of claim of right in rem will cause the effect of retrocession impotent, thus on the occasion of selling other's property and tackling lost-and-found objects and drifts, the law will encounter an embarrassment. Meanwhile, the system of possession will face a dilemma. In order to fix the defects of itself, the scheme of replacing claim of real rights by tortuous liability has to redefine existing concepts of civil law on a large scale and to modify established system of civil law and the theories thereof. Even then it functions inadequately. In all, it should be abandoned because it has no merits except undesirable effects. The reason that the legislation of real rights must follow the existing provisions of General Principles of Civil Law is insufficient. The limitation in the pattern of claim of right in rem is also an obstacle that cannot be solved in the pattern of tortuous liability. In a reforming era, in a country receiving foreign laws and doctrines, the traditions and customs are always discarded and changed. In other words, traditions and customs cannot be used as standards to define legal concepts or to decide which mode to choose in the most circumstances.