本文關(guān)鍵詞：票據(jù)抗辯制度比較研究　出處：《黑龍江大學(xué)》2015年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 票據(jù)抗辯 比較研究 票據(jù)法

【摘要】：票據(jù)抗辯制度是票據(jù)法的重要組成部分,對促進(jìn)票據(jù)流通、平衡票據(jù)各方當(dāng)事人的利益有重要意義。關(guān)于這一制度,各國票據(jù)法的規(guī)定并不一致。在日內(nèi)瓦法系國家,票據(jù)被視為一種有價證券,美國卻將票據(jù)定位為一種合同,一種財產(chǎn)。這樣的差別性定位令兩種票據(jù)法律制度在票據(jù)法的一些基本制度規(guī)則上明顯不同。在票據(jù)立法模式方面,日內(nèi)瓦法系國家采取的是以票據(jù)行為為邏輯中心的立法模式,美國采取的是以明確票據(jù)當(dāng)事人權(quán)利義務(wù)為中心的立法模式；在票據(jù)權(quán)利規(guī)則方面,日內(nèi)瓦法系國家將融票據(jù)物質(zhì)權(quán)利和票據(jù)內(nèi)容權(quán)利為一體的權(quán)利類型界定為票據(jù)權(quán)利,其他的權(quán)利被視為票據(jù)法上的權(quán)利,美國沒有這樣的區(qū)分,任何的票據(jù)合同權(quán)利和票據(jù)財產(chǎn)權(quán)利都被認(rèn)為是票據(jù)權(quán)利；在票據(jù)流轉(zhuǎn)規(guī)則方面,日內(nèi)瓦法系國家規(guī)定的票據(jù)流轉(zhuǎn)方式包括出票、背書和交付,美國的票據(jù)流轉(zhuǎn)方式則分為簽發(fā)、流通和轉(zhuǎn)讓,背書不是獨(dú)立的流轉(zhuǎn)方式,它是指示票據(jù)流通的必要條件；在票據(jù)當(dāng)事人規(guī)則方面,日內(nèi)瓦法系國家多將記載在票據(jù)上的當(dāng)事人作為調(diào)整對象,其他的受票據(jù)法調(diào)整的主體要少于美國。受各國票據(jù)性質(zhì)定位和基本票據(jù)制度規(guī)則差異影響,不同國家在票據(jù)抗辯制度上也存在明顯分歧。主要表現(xiàn)有：日內(nèi)瓦法系國家從票據(jù)行為角度出發(fā)界定票據(jù)抗辯的內(nèi)涵,美國以票據(jù)債務(wù)人可以拒絕履行票據(jù)責(zé)任的情形為出發(fā)點(diǎn)；日內(nèi)瓦法系國家票據(jù)抗辯的當(dāng)事人被局限在名字記載在票據(jù)上的人,美國沒有這樣的限制；日內(nèi)瓦法系國家的票據(jù)抗辯法律規(guī)范分散無序,美國集中于《統(tǒng)一商法典》第3-305條；日內(nèi)瓦法系國家的票據(jù)抗辯類型劃分和抗辯事由規(guī)則偏重于對票據(jù)行為效力的考量,美國的正當(dāng)持票人制度對票據(jù)抗辯的類型劃分有關(guān)鍵性影響；日內(nèi)瓦法系國家的票據(jù)抗辯限制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在于票據(jù)債務(wù)人對出票人或?qū)Τ制比饲笆值目罐q,美國的票據(jù)抗辯限制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在于正當(dāng)持票人和合同法規(guī)則。中國的票據(jù)法和票據(jù)抗辯制度綜合了上述兩種票據(jù)法律制度的特點(diǎn),卻未能很好地克服他們的不足,在票據(jù)立法觀念、票據(jù)權(quán)利規(guī)則和票據(jù)當(dāng)事人規(guī)則以及票據(jù)抗辯類型劃分規(guī)則等方面出現(xiàn)了一些問題,需要通過拓寬對外研究的視野、調(diào)整票據(jù)權(quán)利規(guī)則、修改票據(jù)當(dāng)事人規(guī)則和明確票據(jù)抗辯類型劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等方面進(jìn)行完善。
[Abstract]:Bill defense system is an important part of instrument law. It is of great significance to promote the circulation of instruments and balance the interests of the parties to the bill. In the Geneva legal system, the instrument is regarded as a kind of negotiable securities, but the United States regards the instrument as a kind of contract. One kind of property. This kind of differential positioning makes the two legal systems of negotiable instruments obviously different in some basic institutional rules of the instrument law, and in the aspect of legislation mode of bill. Geneva law system countries adopt the legislative model of taking the act of instrument as the logical center, and the United States adopts the legislative model centered on clarifying the rights and obligations of the parties to the instrument. In terms of the rules of negotiable instrument rights, the Geneva legal system defines the right type which combines the material rights of instruments and the rights of content of instruments as the rights of instruments, while the other rights are regarded as rights in the law of instruments. The United States does not have such a distinction, any bill of contract rights and property rights are regarded as bill rights; In terms of the rules of bill circulation, the Geneva law countries provide for the circulation of bills, including issuance, endorsement and delivery, the United States is divided into the circulation of issuance, circulation and transfer, endorsement is not an independent way of circulation. It is a necessary condition for indicating the circulation of instruments; In the aspect of the rules of the parties to the instrument, the parties recorded in the instrument are regarded as the object of adjustment by the countries of Geneva legal system. The other subject adjusted by the negotiable instrument law is less than that of the United States. It is affected by the orientation of the nature of the bill and the difference of the basic bill system rules. Different countries also have obvious differences in the bill defense system. The main manifestation is: the Geneva law countries define the connotation of the bill defense from the point of view of bill behavior. The United States takes the situation in which the debtor of the instrument can refuse to perform the obligations of the instrument as the starting point; The parties to the bill defence in the Geneva legal system are limited to the person whose name is on the instrument, and the United States does not have such a restriction; The legal norms of bill defense in Geneva legal system are scattered and disordered, and the United States concentrates on articles 3-305 of the uniform Commercial Code. In the Geneva law system, the rules on the classification of defense types and defenses are focused on the consideration of the validity of acts of instruments, and the system of legitimate holders of bills in the United States has a key influence on the classification of types of defences of bills. The limitation standard of bill defense in Geneva legal system lies in the debtor's defense against the drawer or the holder of the bill. The limitation standard of bill defense in the United States lies in the rules of legitimate bearer and contract law. China's bill law and bill defense system synthesize the characteristics of these two kinds of bill legal systems, but they can not overcome their shortcomings very well. There are some problems in the legislative concept of bill, the rules of bill rights, the rules of parties to bills and the rules of dividing the types of bill defences, and so on. It is necessary to adjust the rules of rights of bills through broadening the field of vision of foreign research. To modify the rules of the parties to the bill and to clarify the criteria for the classification of defense types of bills and other aspects to improve.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.287

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 海妙;;淺析票據(jù)抗辯制度[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)視角(中旬);2011年07期

2 海妙;;票據(jù)抗辯制度[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)視角(中旬);2011年08期

3 崔艷鯤;票據(jù)抗辯與票據(jù)抗辯限制關(guān)系之我見[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年03期

4 曹艷春;票據(jù)抗辯的法律探討[J];哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2002年04期

5 汪世虎;試論票據(jù)抗辯切斷制度[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(法學(xué)版);2003年02期

6 李娟;論票據(jù)抗辯的限制[J];中國律師;2003年06期

7 李玉基;票據(jù)抗辯的法哲學(xué)分析[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年01期

8 謝黎偉;論票據(jù)抗辯[J];福建金融管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年02期

9 李國慧;;論票據(jù)抗辯限制理論在審判實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用[J];人民司法;2005年12期

10 高子才;票據(jù)抗辯限制與反限制研究(上)[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前7條

1 邵鈞;票據(jù)抗辯的涵義和必要性[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報;2005年

2 李虹;票據(jù)抗辯的內(nèi)容與限制[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報;2014年

3 彭躍進(jìn) 應(yīng)有歡;票據(jù)抗辯限制的例外[N];人民法院報;2004年

4 張建明;票據(jù)抗辯的行使與方式[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報;2003年

5 董惠江;轉(zhuǎn)讓方法與票據(jù)抗辯限制[N];人民法院報;2002年

6 李國慧;票據(jù)抗辯限制的適用[N];人民法院報;2004年

7 鄭剛;票據(jù)抗辯在審判實(shí)踐中的適用[N];人民法院報;2001年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 李兵巍;票據(jù)抗辯制度比較研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2015年

2 董惠江;票據(jù)抗辯論[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年

3 鄭宇;票據(jù)抗辯理論研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 蘇傳蘭;論票據(jù)抗辯限制制度[D];南京大學(xué);2014年

2 張爭艷;論票據(jù)抗辯[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

3 季長松;票據(jù)抗辯限制規(guī)則研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

4 許輝猛;票據(jù)抗辯限制制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2004年

5 包旭芳;票據(jù)抗辯法律問題研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2006年

6 石勝利;票據(jù)抗辯制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

7 董一龍;論票據(jù)抗辯制度[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2012年

8 王鑫;票據(jù)抗辯的相關(guān)法律問題研究[D];北京化工大學(xué);2013年

9 胡月皓;票據(jù)抗辯研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

10 叢健;票據(jù)抗辯之比較法研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：1372632