权利客体的概念构造与理论统一
发布时间：2018-09-17 16:08
【摘要】：民法上的客体有法律关系和权利两个语境,存在颠倒概念种属等逻辑矛盾。民法上的客体语境应限于权利,法律关系主、客体理论受前苏联的不当影响。客体概念源自哲学,强调主体的支配作用,客体理论由此烙上哲学印痕。客体概念应回归法学,为权利的形成机制。权利具有规范和事实的二元属性,应区分其客体与对象,使前者表征权利的规范性;后者表征权利的事实性。客体多元论导致了权利二象性的错位,权利客体应向一元论回归,统一为义务人的行为。《民法总则》不规定权利客体为其解释及理论发展留下了空间。
[Abstract]:The object of civil law has two contexts: legal relation and right. The object context of civil law should be limited to right, subject of legal relation and object theory under improper influence of former Soviet Union. The concept of object originates from philosophy and emphasizes the dominant role of subject. The concept of object should be returned to law as the forming mechanism of right. Right has the dual attribute of norm and fact, and should distinguish its object from object, so that the former can represent the norm of right, and the latter represents the fact of right. The object pluralism leads to the dislocation of the duality of the right, and the object of the right should return to the monism and be unified as the behavior of the obligor. The general principles of the Civil Law do not stipulate that the object of the right leaves room for its interpretation and theoretical development.
【作者单位】： 华东政法大学法律学院;
【基金】：作者主持的国家社会科学基金青年项目《人格权确权的伦理基础研究》(17CFX026)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D923
本文编号：2246438
[Abstract]:The object of civil law has two contexts: legal relation and right. The object context of civil law should be limited to right, subject of legal relation and object theory under improper influence of former Soviet Union. The concept of object originates from philosophy and emphasizes the dominant role of subject. The concept of object should be returned to law as the forming mechanism of right. Right has the dual attribute of norm and fact, and should distinguish its object from object, so that the former can represent the norm of right, and the latter represents the fact of right. The object pluralism leads to the dislocation of the duality of the right, and the object of the right should return to the monism and be unified as the behavior of the obligor. The general principles of the Civil Law do not stipulate that the object of the right leaves room for its interpretation and theoretical development.
【作者单位】： 华东政法大学法律学院;
【基金】：作者主持的国家社会科学基金青年项目《人格权确权的伦理基础研究》(17CFX026)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D923
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 刁胜先;蔡旋滔;刘仲秋;;信息社会背景下的民事权利客体之解读与重构[J];重庆邮电大学学报(社会科学版);2009年03期
2 方新军;;权利客体的概念及层次[J];法学研究;2010年02期
3 郑新剑;“人身”不能作为民事权利客体吗?[J];法学评论;1986年06期
4 李杨;熊莹;;权利客体的民法解构[J];南昌航空大学学报(社会科学版);2010年02期
5 章戈;小议客体与标的[J];西北政法学院学报;1985年01期
6 张静;;“错误出生”侵权责任的权利客体探讨[J];商品与质量;2012年S2期
7 郑幸福;“骨灰案”中的法律关系及赔偿依据[J];法学;1991年12期
8 林旭霞;;林业碳汇权利客体研究[J];中国法学;2013年02期
9 叶延玺;;基于利益分析对权利本质的再思考[J];云南大学学报(法学版);2012年04期
10 林旭霞;;财产、财产观的历史考察与现实分析[J];福建论坛(人文社会科学版);2006年09期
相关会议论文 前1条
1 方新军;;权利客体论[A];全国外国法制史研究会学术丛书——20世纪外国司法制度的变革[C];2002年
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 方新军;权利客体论[D];厦门大学;2006年
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 朱虎;权利客体的解释框架研究：逻辑和价值的区分[D];中国政法大学;2005年
，本文编号：2246438
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2246438.html
