【摘要】：我國繼承法死因處分在方式上僅有遺囑處分一種,在內(nèi)容上,就指定繼承人而言無替補繼承、后位繼承機制,對剝奪繼承權(quán)無法定繼承人特留份之限制,對遺贈定義過于狹隘,被繼承人缺乏類似于負擔(dān)指示以更全面貫徹自己意志的處分輔助手段。這些都限制了死因處分形成的可能性和被繼承人理性處分、自由處分的空間。德國繼承法死因處分制度,從處分方式、處分內(nèi)容上都全方位考慮了被繼承人以遺產(chǎn)歸屬為核心的處分動機和個人意圖,同時相應(yīng)規(guī)制了處分受益人之間、處分義務(wù)人之間、他們相互間的責(zé)、權(quán)、義務(wù)關(guān)系,為被繼承人理性定位處分目標(biāo),合理構(gòu)建處分過程,充分發(fā)揮處分自由做了扎實鋪墊。而德國繼承法各項死因處分機制的運作,又都有機有序地和繼承法其他章節(jié)、《德國民法典》其他各編內(nèi)容環(huán)環(huán)相扣,呼應(yīng)關(guān)聯(lián)。這些都對我國繼承法和死因處分制度很有鏡鑒價值。
[Abstract]:There is only one kind of testamentary punishment in the way of the cause of death in the inheritance law of our country. In terms of content, there is no substitute succession in terms of the designated heir, the mechanism of subsequent succession, the restriction of depriving the inheritance right of no legal heir, and the definition of bequest is too narrow. Heirs lack disciplinary aids similar to burden instructions to more fully implement their will. These limit the possibility of death punishment and the space of rational punishment and free punishment by heirs. The system of punishment for the cause of death in German inheritance law takes into account the motive and individual intention of the heirs with the ownership of the estate as the core in terms of the mode of punishment and the content of the punishment, and at the same time restricts the punishment between the beneficiaries and the obligors. The relationship between their responsibilities, rights and obligations has laid a solid foundation for the rational positioning of the target of punishment, the reasonable construction of the process of punishment, and the full play of the freedom of punishment. The operation of the punishment mechanism of the cause of death in the German inheritance law is closely related to other chapters of the inheritance law and other parts of the German Civil Code. These are of great value to the inheritance law and cause of death punishment system in our country.
【作者單位】： 中國政法大學(xué);
【基金】：作者主持的國家社科基金“德國民法術(shù)語在中國的繼受與發(fā)展研究(16BFX103)”項目階段性成果
【分類號】：D923.5

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 榮成;;繼承人有清償被繼承人電費義務(wù)嗎?[J];農(nóng)電管理;2006年10期

2 李景林 ,熊裕武;試論被繼承人債務(wù)的清償[J];南昌大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);1986年01期

3 李玉珍;;繼承人以外對被繼承人扶養(yǎng)較多的人辦理取得遺產(chǎn)公證的問題[J];法學(xué)雜志;1992年04期

4 ;繼承人應(yīng)否承擔(dān)被繼承人生前的個人債務(wù)[J];黨員之友;1998年03期

5 榮成;對一起清償被繼承人電費債務(wù)糾紛案的評析[J];農(nóng)村電工;2005年02期

6 劉淑珍;被繼承人個人的財產(chǎn)才能繼承[J];人民司法;1985年04期

7 楊震;;關(guān)于限制被繼承人生前贈與行為問題的探討[J];法學(xué)研究;1988年05期

8 ;法定繼承人可以撤銷被繼承人的贈與嗎?[J];山西老年;2012年01期

9 ;如何認定繼承人虐待被繼承人情節(jié)是否嚴(yán)重[J];伴侶(A版);2002年08期

10 梁燕初;;繼承人如何領(lǐng)取被繼承人的存款?[J];八小時以外;2002年09期

相關(guān)會議論文 前3條

1 倪曉晶;;淺析遺產(chǎn)債權(quán)清償責(zé)任若干問題[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第4輯）[C];2008年

2 蔣超;倪s，

本文編號：2495989