论日耳曼法上的“以手护手”

发布时间：2018-03-20 05:21

本文选题：以手护手　切入点：有权支配　出处：《中国政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：国内学者论及善意取得制度的来源,多会提及日耳曼法上的“以手护手”原则,认为这是善意取得制度的原型。但是对于“以手护手”的真实情况又语焉不详,有鉴于此,本文对日耳曼法中的“以手护手”进行了考察。本文以日耳曼法中对动产追及的限制——“以手护手”原则为主要论述对象,兼及动产追及的客体“动产有权支配”。本文对有权支配及“以手护手”的学说史进行了较为细致的考查,试图理清“以手护手”的来龙去脉。除引言和结论,本文分为三部分：第一部分重点介绍日耳曼法中动产追及的对象“有权支配(Gewere)"。日耳曼物权法的基本制度设计与罗马法存在很大区别,与罗马法以所有权与占有二分为基础建立的物权制度不同,日耳曼法以混合了占有与所有权特点的有权支配为物权制度的基础。由于日耳曼法中不存在抽象的“所有权”概念,有权支配作为所有权的“外衣”而成为动产追及的对象。理解日耳曼法中的有支配制度是理解“以手护手”的基础。中文著述提及有权支配时,对其性质的认识多有含混不清之处,再加上有权支配在日耳曼法的动产追及制度中处于核心地位,因此,本文第一部分着重介绍了有关有权支配的基础知识。对于有权支配的词源,学界有“保护说”与“穿衣说”之争,吉尔克所倡导的“穿衣说”直到今日仍为通说。有权支配具有权利与事实的双重属性,因此无论译为“占有”,还是“支配权”都有失允当,本文将Gewere译为“有权支配”。日耳曼法中的有权支配与罗马法和现代民法中的占有均有较大区别,不可混为一谈。第二部分主要是梳理“以手护手”的学说史。因现存的历史文献并没有关于“以手护手”之所以成立的理论解释,在十九和二十世纪日耳曼法学家对进行了大量的研究,提出过各种理论来对“以手护手”进行阐释。阿尔布莱希特最早提出的“法律上的有权支配”理论因有严重缺陷很快就被否定了。胡贝尔和吉尔克主张的“公示理论”,度成为非常有影响力的学说。但是,公示理论的核心论点却有重要缺陷。公示理论认为,对动产的实际支配具有某种“赋权力”,使得受托人有权处分委托物而致使委托人不得对委托物进行追及。但是,公示理论却不能说明为什么对脱手物的实际支配却没有“赋权力”。加之该理论夹杂了现代的交易保护思想,与当时的情形并不相符。为对抗公示理论舒尔策提出了“权利安宁破坏理论”,以解释为何可对非基于所有权人意志的脱手物进行追及,从而在另一个角度阐释说明“以手护手”。该理论虽能较有说服力地说明对脱手物进行追及的原因,但是却在解释所有权人的诉权方面陷入了混乱。较新的研究多是从所有权人的诉权入手来对这个问题进行解释,认为在所有权人自愿将动产委托给他人的情况下,无论基于合同还是侵权,所有权人对第三人均不享有诉权。在盗窃或抢劫的情况下,所有权人对第三人享有诉权的原因在于“犯罪” 第三部分简要介绍了有关善意取得起源的两种学说：罗马法起源说和日耳曼法起源说。直到今天,这两种学说都尚未完全将对方驳倒。从善意取得与“以手护手”的相似程度来看,这两种制度未必存在必然的联系。现代善意取得很可能综合了罗马法的时效取得与日耳曼法的“以手护手”两种制度。
[Abstract]:The domestic scholars and the system of bona fide acquisition source, will mention the Germanic law principle of "hand in hand", think this is a bona fide acquisition prototype. But for the "hand in hand" the real situation and vague, in view of this, this paper in the Germanic law of "hand in hand" were investigated.
In this paper, the Germanic law to the chattel chase and restrictions -- "hand in hand" principle as the main object, and moving object "production recovery and property rights to control." the right to dispose of and the "hand in hand" theory of history for a more detailed examination, trying to sort out "hand hand" the sequence of events. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into three parts:
The first part focuses on the object of "real estate recovery and the Germanic law has the right to control (Gewere)". The basic system design of property law and Germanic law of Rome and Rome, there is a big difference, the ownership and possession of two points as the basis for the establishment of property right system is different, the Germanic law with mixed possession and ownership characteristics are right is based on the property rights system. Because of the abstract concept of ownership does not exist in the Germanic law, have the right to dominate as the title "jacket" and become the real estate object recovery and understanding. In Germanic law system is the dominant understanding of "basic hand hand". Chinese works mentioned has the right to control and the understanding of the nature of more ambiguous place plus the right to dispose of, at the core of the real estate in the Germanic law system in the chase and therefore, the first part mainly introduces the relevant rights to control the Basic knowledge for the right to dispose of the etymology, scholars have "protection" and "dress" of the dispute, Gil advocated "dressed" grams until today is still on. Has the power to govern with dual attributes of rights and the fact that it is translated as "possession", or "right of control" have lost the rightness of the Gewere translated as "right of domination". In Germanic law have the right to dominate and Rome law and modern civil law has had great difference, can not be confused.
The second part mainly combs the "hand in hand" theory of history. Because of the existing historical documents and not on interpretation of "hand in hand" the reason for the establishment of the theory, in nineteen and twentieth Century on German jurists made a lot of research and put forward various theories of "interpretation of hand in hand". Albrecht put forward the "law on the rights to control theory due to serious defects was soon rejected. Hubel and Gierke advocated a" publicity theory ", become very influential theory. However, the core of the theory is the important point of publicity publicity defects. Theory, on real estate has some actual control" Fu power ", the trustee has the right to dispose of property in the client not to trust and to recover. However, publicity theory cannot explain why to sell money No "Fu power". In addition to the theory with modern ideas and the protection of trade, is not consistent with the situation at the time. Put forward the "right to a breach of the peace theory" against publicity theory to explain why the Schultz, based on non dispose of ownership will chase and thus, in the interpretation of another angle "hand in hand". The theory is more convincing explanation for why chase and to sell things, but in the interpretation of the owner's right hand into chaos. A new study is to start from the right of the owner to explain this question, think in the owner voluntarily property entrusted to others, whether based on contract or tort, the owner of third per capita does not enjoy the right to appeal. In case of theft or robbery, the owner of the enjoyment of the right reason is that "made of third people Sin"
The third part briefly introduces two theories about the origin of bona fide acquisition: Rome law and the Germanic law origin origin. Until today, the two theories are not completely refuted. The other from bona fide acquisition and "similarity hand hand" point of view, these two systems may not have inevitable connection. Bona fide acquisition probably the limitation of the laws of Rome made comprehensive and Germanic law of "hand in hand" two systems.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D904.1

【参考文献】