论“中间型权利”与财产法二元架构——兼论分类的方法论意义

大陆法系财产法先后经历了萌芽、对物权与对人权分野、依对象标准划分物权债权、依效力标准划分物权债权和批判发展五个阶段,形成了相对凝固的物债二元结构。但在现阶段的反思中,不具有物债典型性的“中间型权利”日益增多,使我们不能再停留于物权债权化和债权物权化的含混概括中,故本文做出原初的整理,将中间型权利分为历史形成的类型、法典确立时即存在的混合类型以及现代的转化类型三大类别。这些中间型权利的存在强烈冲击了财产法的二元架构,使我们在认识论意义上保留此分类的同时,必须在实证意义上将其弱化:设定一切权利都具有剩余性,因此权利应该“反向认定”,分别按具体标准考察权利的权能,并改变传统意思自治标准,以“当事人的知晓”为标准决定交往秩序的平衡。

On "Intermediate Right" and the Dualist Structure of Property Law

Through the development in five processes, the budding process, the distinction of jus in re and jus in personam, the distinction of right in re and right in personam according to their objects, the distinction of right in re and obligational right according to their scopes of effectiveness, and the critically development process, the structure of property law of Continental Legal System has takes on a changeless dual system with the right in re and obligaional right. Yet we may find more and more'medium rights' without the typical characteristics of right in re and obligaional right through the reflection at present process. Therefore the article initially catalogs them into three types, the type formed in the history, the type existed in BGB and the type formed at modern ages. These ' medium rights' strikes the traditional dual structure of property law intensively, inspiring us to treat the distinction of right in re and obligaional right separately, by which the article suggest we maintain it in the epistemology, yet weaken it in the positivism.