本文選題：物權(quán)客體　切入點(diǎn)：所有權(quán)客體　出處：《南京財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：物權(quán)法第二條明確規(guī)定,物權(quán)是對(duì)特定物享有的支配和排他的權(quán)利。因此物權(quán)法中的物均應(yīng)滿(mǎn)足特定性的要求。社會(huì)發(fā)展帶來(lái)民法物范圍的不斷擴(kuò)大,使得物權(quán)客體日趨復(fù)雜,如何確定這些新物的特定性是它們進(jìn)入物權(quán)法的前提。因此,需要對(duì)物權(quán)客體特定性的判斷進(jìn)行研究。所有權(quán)在整個(gè)物權(quán)體系中居于核心地位,因而所有權(quán)客體特定性的判斷具有典型意義。通過(guò)所有權(quán)客體特定性的研究可以認(rèn)知物權(quán)客體特定性研究的價(jià)值和意義所在。本文共分為三章,各部分主要內(nèi)容如下：第一章是所有權(quán)客體特定性研究的理論準(zhǔn)備。通過(guò)梳理羅馬法、法國(guó)、德國(guó)、我國(guó)物權(quán)法和學(xué)者給民法物的定義,發(fā)現(xiàn)民法物的概念其實(shí)很難界定,原因在于物的范圍的不斷擴(kuò)張。這也是推動(dòng)當(dāng)前民法物研究的主要?jiǎng)右�。民法物范圍的擴(kuò)張影響物權(quán)法中物的范圍的大小,并間接影響物權(quán)客體特定性的判斷。物權(quán)客體特定性判斷的對(duì)象是物。為此,本文討論了物與民法權(quán)利的關(guān)系,以明確物作為物權(quán)客體的正當(dāng)性。物權(quán)法中的物是民法物的一部分,但它又不完全等同于民法中的物,物權(quán)法中的物應(yīng)是特定物。這樣就明確了物權(quán)客體特定性判斷的研究對(duì)象。在此基礎(chǔ)上,本文研究了物權(quán)客體特定性判斷的一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。時(shí)間和空間是人類(lèi)認(rèn)識(shí)世界和科學(xué)研究的重要方法。在哲學(xué)領(lǐng)域,康德用時(shí)間和空間來(lái)闡述法哲學(xué)的不同感官對(duì)象。他認(rèn)為所有權(quán)對(duì)客體的占有分為現(xiàn)實(shí)的占有和純粹法律占有,區(qū)分的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)便是客體是否可以用時(shí)間和空間來(lái)衡量。在物理學(xué)領(lǐng)域,牛頓的經(jīng)典力學(xué)理論和愛(ài)因斯坦的狹義相對(duì)論均是在各自時(shí)空觀基礎(chǔ)上的偉大發(fā)現(xiàn)。而從物權(quán)性質(zhì)本身來(lái)看,時(shí)間和空間也都是重要的參照標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。因此,本文以時(shí)間和空間兩個(gè)維度作為一般意義上物權(quán)客體特定性判斷的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并作為所有權(quán)客體特定性判斷的基礎(chǔ)。第二章是對(duì)所有權(quán)客體特定性的具體判斷。本文首先肯定了傳統(tǒng)民法理論對(duì)所有權(quán)概念認(rèn)識(shí)的合理性。通過(guò)所有權(quán)的概念和權(quán)能可以看出,所有權(quán)是最能體現(xiàn)物權(quán)性質(zhì)和特征的權(quán)利,并可得出所有權(quán)客體與物權(quán)客體在范圍上重合。因此,物權(quán)客體特定性判斷的一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在所有權(quán)中是完全適用的。通過(guò)對(duì)在適用中存在的兩個(gè)問(wèn)題的分析,即集合物上可否成立所有權(quán)和不斷消耗的物品是否具有特定性,本文得出了一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在應(yīng)用過(guò)程中的兩個(gè)基本原則。但生活是復(fù)雜的,一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并不能解決全部的所有權(quán)客體適格與否的問(wèn)題。這就需要對(duì)所有權(quán)客體的特定性進(jìn)行具體分析。在解釋論的視角下,所有權(quán)客體特定性的判斷首先需要考慮所有權(quán)本身的特殊性和所有權(quán)客體的特殊性。所有權(quán)本身的特殊性體現(xiàn)在民法所有權(quán)與憲法所有權(quán)關(guān)系的處理上。通過(guò)對(duì)自然資源國(guó)家所有權(quán)的考察,本文發(fā)現(xiàn),與西方傳統(tǒng)大陸法系國(guó)家憲法上的自然資源所有權(quán)以民法上的自然資源所有權(quán)為基礎(chǔ)不同,我國(guó)在物權(quán)法規(guī)定自然資源國(guó)家所有權(quán)之前,就已經(jīng)有了憲法上的自然資源國(guó)家所有權(quán)。因此我國(guó)物權(quán)法上的自然資源國(guó)家所有權(quán)其實(shí)是以憲法上的規(guī)定為基礎(chǔ)的,其客體的特定性并不完全符合傳統(tǒng)物權(quán)法客體的要求。所有權(quán)客體本身的特殊性則體現(xiàn)在客體范圍的廣泛和權(quán)利主體的多元上。所有權(quán)的這些特殊性均會(huì)影響所有權(quán)客體特定性的判斷,因此所有權(quán)客體特定性的判斷應(yīng)堅(jiān)持變通理解、寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)的解釋方法。在此基礎(chǔ)上,本文研究了典型的所有權(quán)客體的特定性。即自然資源國(guó)家所有權(quán)客體特定性的判斷和無(wú)線電頻譜資源客體特定性的判斷。自然資源所有權(quán)的規(guī)定由于源自憲法,規(guī)定過(guò)于原則,因此僅具有宣誓意義。對(duì)它們的客體的特定性沒(méi)有必要逐個(gè)判斷,僅需從寬泛意義上整體考慮即可。氣候資源由于物權(quán)法未規(guī)定且不符合特定性而被排除在自然資源國(guó)家所有權(quán)客體之外。無(wú)線電頻譜資源可以有兩種理解。一種理解是將無(wú)線電頻譜資源看做由無(wú)線電波排列而成的圖形。另一種理解是將它看做一定頻率的總稱(chēng)。由于將無(wú)線電頻譜資源解釋成圖形資源不符合立法目的,故排除。電磁波的本質(zhì)是物質(zhì),立法者和多數(shù)物權(quán)法學(xué)者也將電磁波看做是民法中的物。借助于功能替代判斷法可以解釋無(wú)線電頻譜資源作為物權(quán)法中國(guó)家所有權(quán)客體的特定性。在第三章,本文總結(jié)了所有權(quán)客體特定性判斷的思路和方法,闡述了所有權(quán)客體判斷的價(jià)值和其所具有的意義。所有權(quán)客體特定性的判斷,首先是對(duì)用益物權(quán)和擔(dān)保物權(quán)客體特定性的判斷具有方法論意義。為此,本文闡述了第二章中所有權(quán)客體判斷的方法和具有的啟示,并以此為基礎(chǔ),對(duì)典型及難以判斷的用益物權(quán)和擔(dān)保物權(quán)客體的特定性進(jìn)行了判斷。通過(guò)對(duì)各部分物權(quán)客體特定性的研究,可以清晰地發(fā)現(xiàn),物權(quán)客體判斷是一個(gè)系統(tǒng)的過(guò)程。在此基礎(chǔ)上,本文分析了以所有權(quán)為代表的物權(quán)客體特定性判斷在理論和實(shí)踐層面的價(jià)值。
[Abstract]:Second of the property law stipulates that the property right is entitled to dispose of specific objects and exclusive rights. So in the real right law of material shall meet the specific requirements. The scope of civil law bring social development continues to expand, the object of real right is becoming more and more complex, how to determine the specific nature of these new materials is a prerequisite for them into law. Therefore, the need for research on the real right object specific judgment. The ownership of the core of the whole system of real right, so the object of ownership specific judgment has typical significance. Through the research object of ownership specific cognitive research specific object of real value and significance. This paper is divided into three chapters, the main the content of each part is as follows: the first chapter is to study the specific object of ownership theory. Through analyzing the law of Rome, France, Germany, China's property law and civil law scholars to the The definition of the concept of civil law in fact that it is difficult to define, because the expansion of the range of the object. This is the main reason to promote the civil law research. The scope of the expansion of scope of civil law in property law of size, and indirectly affect the judgement of the specific property object. The object of real right object specific judgment is the matter. For this reason, this paper discusses the relationship between rights and civil law, in order to clear the object as a legitimate object of real right. In the real right law is a part of the civil law, but it is not exactly the same as in the civil law, the real right law should be specific. So clear the research object of specific property object judgment. On this basis, this paper studies the general standard of judging the specific property object. Time and space is an important method of scientific research and human understanding of the world. In the field of philosophy, with time and space of Kant To expound different objects of the senses of law philosophy. He thinks that share ownership of the object is divided into real possession and possession of pure law, is the standard to distinguish whether the object can be used to measure the time and space. In the field of physics, Newton's theory of classical mechanics and Einstein's Theory of special relativity are in their great space-time found on the basis of the nature of real right. From the point of view, time and space are also an important reference standard. Therefore, based on the two dimensions of time and space as the general sense of the real right object specific judgment standard, and as the basic object of ownership specific judgment. The second chapter is to determine the specific object specific ownership the first confirmed the rationality of the traditional civil law theory understanding of the concept of ownership. The concept and function of ownership can be seen that the ownership is the best embodiment. The right of the nature and characteristics of the right, and the ownership of the object and the object of real right in the scope of overlap. Therefore, the general standard of judgment in the object specific property ownership is fully applicable. Through the analysis of the two problems existing in the application of the collection of objects can become whether ownership and constant consumption article is specific, the general standard of the two basic principles in the process of application. But life is complicated, the general standard does not solve all the problems of the object of ownership qualification or not. This requires specific ownership of the object were analyzed. In theory, the object of ownership specific judgment you first need to consider the particularity of the object of ownership and ownership itself. The particularity of ownership itself reflected in the relationship of ownership in civil law and constitution of ownership . through the investigation on natural resources of state ownership and ownership of natural resources this paper found that the constitution western traditional civil law countries on the ownership of natural resources based on the civil law, property law in our country in the state ownership of natural resources before, had the constitution of the state ownership of natural resources. So I the property law of the natural resources of state ownership is actually based on the provisions of the constitution, the specific object is not entirely consistent with the traditional real law object requirements. Multiple special ownership of the object is reflected in the range of the object and the subject of rights. On these special ownership will affect the ownership the specific object of judgment, so the object of ownership specific judgment should adhere to the flexible understanding, interpretation method of leniency. On this basis, is studied in this paper. The typical object of ownership. The object of state ownership of natural resources specific to the judgment and the radio spectrum resource object specific judgment. The ownership of natural resources since the provisions of the constitution, the provisions are too principle, therefore has only sworn meaning. Specific to the guest body they don't need one by one judge, only from a broad the sense of overall consideration. Climate resources because of real right law does not stipulate and does not comply with the specific nature and were excluded from the natural resources. The object of state ownership of radio spectrum resources can be understood in two ways. One is to understand the radio spectrum resources as radio waves arranged graphics. Another is to understand it. As a certain frequency. Because the radio spectrum resources as graphic resources do not meet the legislative purpose, the nature of the electromagnetic wave is excluded. The material, legislators and more The number of property law scholars will also be regarded as electromagnetic wave in the civil law. With the help of function substitute judgment method can explain the radio spectrum resources as the property law Chinese home ownership specific object. In the third chapter, this paper summarizes the ideas and methods of the object of ownership specific judgment, expounds the object of ownership and the value judgment with the object of ownership specific significance. First is the judgment, the methodological significance of usufructuary rights and security interests of the object specific judgment. Therefore, this paper describes the method of judging the object of ownership in chapter second and has implications, and on this basis, specific to typical and difficult to judge the usufructuary rights and security the object of property rights were judged. Through research on the specific part of the object of real right, it can be clearly found that the object of real right judgment is a process based system. On the other hand, this paper analyzes the value of the specific judgment of the object of real right, which is represented by ownership, in the theoretical and practical level.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 梁慧星;;如何理解物權(quán)法[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2006年04期

2 林艷琴;對(duì)民法“物”的再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];學(xué)術(shù)交流;2003年01期

3 董學(xué)立;;論“在建物”上的抵押權(quán)[J];政法論叢;2009年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1679078