破除债权平等原则的两种立法例之辨析——兼论优先权的性质

罗马法为了保护弱势群体和社会公益,以实现公平正义,开排除债权平等原则之先河,创制出了法定担保制度。近代西方各国在继受罗马法这一制度时,因对待物权特定原则的态度不同,形成了以法国法和日本法为代表的、以法定担保为手段的一元模式和以德国法和英美法为代表的、以法定担保加破产法规定为手段的二元模式。我国是一个继受了德国法传统的大陆法国家,在排除债权平等原则的问题上,遵行的是德国法的二元模式;这种模式与法国法模式属于两种截然不同的范式。故,那种试图将法国法上的一元模式引入我国法律体系中的努力注定是徒劳的。

Two Approaches to Forsake Equality of Claims:Concurrently on the Nature of Privilege

In order to protect the interests of the disadvantaged and social public benefits and realize justice,Roman law took the lead to forsake the principle of equal claims and developed the statutory lien. In modern times while accepting this Roman law institution,due to varied attitudes toward the real right in identified things,there came into being a unitary mode with the statutory lien as means represented by French law and Japanese law and a dualistic mode,represented by German law and Anglo-American law with statutory lien supplemented by bankruptcy laws as means. China can be basically deemed a civil law state that has influenced by German law tradition,and in terms of forsaking of equality of claims,it mainly follows German dualistic mode that is disparate from French unitary approach. Accordingly,any effort aiming at introducing French unitary approach into Chinese legal system is doomed to failure.