论英美法上的LIEN

发布时间：2018-09-07 07:00

【摘要】： lien这一词在英美财产法原文当中经常出现,我国学者大多数将它翻译成“留置权”,笔者认为此种翻译值得商榷。本文所要研究的是英美法中lien这一词的含义以及其背后代表的制度,文章沿着铺陈、展开、分析的路径来进行研究。前言及第一章作为文章的开头起铺陈作用。首先对英美法lien制度作简要概述,并对英美法的相关制度以及大陆法人在理解英美法时容易陷入的误区加以说明,为后面的论述打下基础。在这一部分,列举我国学者目前对lien的理解,指出存在的误区。在这一章的最后一节,提出lien在大陆法系对应的概念——担保。第二章是对lien制度的展开。详细介绍lien制度的分类,力求对lien的分类进行体系化的梳理。lien在英美法上大致可以分为两个大类:衡平法上的lien和法律上的lien。与衡平相对应的是法律,过去我们经常把衡平法当作是与普通法相对应的概念,在正文部分会澄清这一误区。法律上的lien又可以分为意定lien和法定lien,而法定lien又可以分为common law lien、statutory lien、judicial lien等等。第三章进入对lien制度的深入分析。虽然笔者认为将lien翻译为担保更为适宜,但lien制度代表的并不是英美法担保制度的全貌。由于英美法是以判例法为基础发展起来的,即使已经颁布了诸多成文法,也并不能弥补英美法缺乏体系性的缺陷,英美担保制度也是如此。所以文章在此处试图以大陆法的视角对英美法担保制度进行梳理,不求展现英美担保制度的全貌,只求从大陆法的角度为lien在英美担保制度中找到对应的位置,并借此对两大法系的担保进行对比。第四章探讨lien制度对我国的借鉴意义。首先对大陆法担保及英美法lien进行小结,并在此基础上总结分析两大法系的立法思想,最后提出对我国的借鉴意义。在英美法中,只要某一制度或程序具有相同的功能,人们就会使用相同的术语来表述它们,这一点在对lien这一词的使用上体现的淋漓尽致。有些时候虽然使用的术语并不完全一致,甚至显得有些混乱,但这是由于英美法缺乏体系、逻辑不甚严密造成的,并不妨碍它们适用相同的规则,这是典型的实用主义、功能主义的体现。大陆法是典型的概念法,人们对法律制度的理解一切都在概念之上,就连教授给初涉法律的学生授课时也是从讲授概念开始。由于受到概念体系的束缚,大陆法学人近年来正面临着许多理论困境,难以自圆其说,这在民商法领域表现的尤为突出。正是在这种情况之下,我们更应该敢于突破形式的樊篱,在保持原有法学理论体系的基础上大胆借鉴英美法的立法思想,为中国的民法体系建设注入新鲜血液。本文采用了比较法学研究方法、历史法学研究方法。本文的创新之处:推翻法学界对lien为“留置权”的理解,提出lien应为“担保”这一属概念;史无前例地对lien的分类进行了体系性的梳理;对两大法系的立法思想进行了比较分析。
[Abstract]:The word lien often appears in the original English and American Property Law. Most Chinese scholars have translated it into "lien", which is worth discussing.
The preface and the first chapter serve as the beginning of the article. First of all, it gives a brief overview of the lien system of Anglo-American law, and explains the relevant systems of Anglo-American law and the misunderstandings that the continental legal persons are apt to fall into when they understand Anglo-American law, which lays the foundation for the following discussion. In this part, it enumerates the understanding of lien by Chinese scholars and points out its existence. In the last section of this chapter, the concept of lien in the continental law system is put forward.
The second chapter is the development of lien system. It introduces the classification of lien system in detail and tries to systematize the classification of lien system. lien can be divided into two categories in Anglo-American law: the equitable lien and the legal lien. Legal lien can be divided into deliberate lien and statutory lien, while statutory lien can be divided into common law lien, statutory lien, judicial lien and so on.
Chapter Three is an in-depth analysis of the lien system. Although the author thinks it is more appropriate to translate lien into guaranty, the lien system does not represent the panorama of the Anglo-American guaranty system. Therefore, the article tries to sort out the Anglo-American security system from the perspective of continental law, not to show the panorama of Anglo-American security system, only to find the corresponding position of lien in Anglo-American security system from the perspective of continental law, and to make a comparison between the two legal systems.
Chapter Four discusses the reference significance of lien system to our country.First, it summarizes the civil law guarantee and the common law lien, and on this basis, summarizes and analyzes the legislative ideas of the two legal systems, and finally puts forward the reference significance to our country.In Anglo-American law, as long as a certain system or procedure has the same function, people will use the same terminology. Sometimes, though the terminology used is inconsistent or even confusing, it is due to the lack of system and logic in Anglo-American law, which does not prevent them from applying the same rules. This is typical pragmatism, functionalism. Continental law is a typical conceptual law. People's understanding of the legal system is all based on concepts. Even the professor begins to teach concepts to the students who are new to law. Because of the constraints of the conceptual system, the continental jurists are facing many theoretical difficulties in recent years, which is difficult to justify themselves in the field of civil and commercial law. It is in this case that we should dare to break through the barriers of form, boldly draw lessons from the legislative ideas of Anglo-American law on the basis of maintaining the original legal theory system, and inject fresh blood into the construction of China's civil law system.
This paper adopts comparative law research method and historical jurisprudence research method.
The innovations of this paper are as follows: overthrowing the understanding of lien as "lien" in the legal circles, putting forward the concept that Lien should be "security"; systematically combing the classification of lien unprecedentedly; and comparatively analyzing the legislative ideas of the two legal systems.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：D913

【相似文献】