【摘要】：在票據(jù)法律體系中，如果將整個(gè)票據(jù)法看作是票據(jù)權(quán)利人的保護(hù)法，票據(jù)抗辯則是對(duì)這種權(quán)利的限制，是通過(guò)對(duì)權(quán)利的對(duì)抗來(lái)限制權(quán)利濫用的可能性，從而達(dá)到票據(jù)法內(nèi)在價(jià)值上的平衡。而任何法律的內(nèi)在平衡都是通過(guò)權(quán)利與義務(wù)的協(xié)調(diào)和必要的對(duì)抗性來(lái)維持的。 票據(jù)抗辯是指票據(jù)債務(wù)人對(duì)票據(jù)持有人提出的付款請(qǐng)求以某種合法事由予以拒絕的行為，其本質(zhì)是允許票據(jù)債務(wù)人在一定條件下，拒絕向持票人履行付款義務(wù)，從而使票據(jù)的安全性和流通性得到加強(qiáng)。該制度包括抗辯和抗辯限制兩個(gè)部分，其設(shè)立的目的在于使票據(jù)債務(wù)人和票據(jù)債權(quán)人在法律關(guān)系中相互制約，，從而達(dá)到雙方利益的均衡。因此，研究票據(jù)抗辯制度，對(duì)票據(jù)法的發(fā)展具有重要作用，對(duì)保護(hù)票據(jù)債務(wù)人的合法權(quán)利，維護(hù)票據(jù)流通的安全與秩序，進(jìn)而促進(jìn)票據(jù)的流通，具有十分重要的理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 目前，經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)期發(fā)展的域外票據(jù)法，票據(jù)抗辯制度已經(jīng)相當(dāng)完善。總結(jié)起來(lái)主要為兩大票據(jù)法體系，即以日內(nèi)瓦票據(jù)法為代表的大陸法系和以美國(guó)《統(tǒng)一商法典》為代表的英美法系。兩大體系下的抗辯制度各具特色，尤其是立法理念存在較大差異。在分類上，大陸法系將票據(jù)抗辯分為對(duì)物的抗辯和對(duì)人的抗辯，而美國(guó)《統(tǒng)一商法典》對(duì)票據(jù)抗辯的規(guī)定建立在對(duì)“正當(dāng)持票人”界定的基礎(chǔ)之上，依據(jù)持票人受制于抗辯的程度，分為真正的抗辯和普通的抗辯。無(wú)論是兩大法系下的哪一種票據(jù)抗辯制度規(guī)范，立法都在體現(xiàn)本法系特色的同時(shí)，充分追求票據(jù)的流通性與安全性，具體制度完整而具有較強(qiáng)的邏輯性，值得我國(guó)借鑒。 相比之下，我國(guó)票據(jù)抗辯制度存在一些缺陷，如票據(jù)立法理念過(guò)于注重安全性而忽視票據(jù)的流通性，具體抗辯規(guī)范與票據(jù)基本原理相違背，票據(jù)必須記載事項(xiàng)要求與票據(jù)法的私法屬性不一致等。因此，通過(guò)對(duì)相對(duì)完善的日內(nèi)瓦大陸法系和英美票據(jù)法系的票據(jù)抗辯制度進(jìn)行比較研究，總結(jié)出其異同點(diǎn)，找出其先進(jìn)并且適合我國(guó)的規(guī)定，重新構(gòu)建適合我國(guó)票據(jù)抗辯立法理念和立法模式，弱化無(wú)效抗辯事由，完善票據(jù)抗辯限制是當(dāng)前改進(jìn)票據(jù)抗辯制度的首要選擇。
[Abstract]:In the legal system of negotiable instruments, if the whole negotiable instruments law is regarded as the protection law of the obligee of negotiable instruments, the negotiable instruments defense is the restriction of this right, which restricts the possibility of abuse of the right through the confrontation of the right, so as to achieve the balance of the intrinsic value of the negotiable instruments law. Reconciling necessary antagonism to maintain.
Negotiable instrument defense refers to the act that the debtor of a negotiable instrument refuses the payment request made by the holder of a negotiable instrument for some lawful reason. Its essence is to allow the debtor of a negotiable instrument to refuse to perform the obligation of payment to the holder under certain conditions, thus enhancing the security and negotiability of the instrument. Therefore, the study of the bill defense system plays an important role in the development of the bill law, protecting the legitimate rights of the bill debtor, safeguarding the security and order of the bill circulation, and thus promoting the bill. The circulation is of great theoretical and practical significance.
At present, after the long-term development of the extraterritorial bill law, the bill defense system has been quite perfect. In summary, there are two major bill law systems, namely, the continental law system represented by the Geneva bill law and the Anglo-American law system represented by the United States < Uniform Commercial Code < Uniform Commercial Code >. In the classification, the civil law system divides the bill defense into the object defense and the person defense, while the United States < Uniform Commercial Code > stipulates the bill defense on the basis of the definition of the "legitimate holder", according to the degree of the holder subject to the defense, it is divided into the real defense and the ordinary defense. Which kind of bill defense system norm, the legislation all manifests this law system characteristic at the same time, fully pursues the bill circulation and the security, the concrete system integrity and has the strong logic, is worth our country to draw lessons from.
In contrast, there are some shortcomings in the system of bill defense in China, such as the idea of bill legislation pays too much attention to security but neglects the negotiability of bill, the specific defense norm is contrary to the basic principle of bill, and the requirement of recording items in bill is inconsistent with the private law attribute of bill law. Comparing with the bill defense system of the Anglo-American Bill Law System, this paper summarizes its similarities and differences, finds out its advanced and suitable regulations, reconstructs the legislative concept and mode of bill defense in China, weakens the cause of invalid defense, and perfects the restriction of bill defense.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.287

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 季衛(wèi)東;程序比較論[J];比較法研究;1993年01期

2 王朝瑩;;淺析票據(jù)抗辯[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年27期

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

4 于海斌;崔愛(ài)東;;票據(jù)抗辯權(quán)之法理基礎(chǔ)探析[J];遼寧大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年04期

5 黃周炳;;票據(jù)抗辯制度的理論基礎(chǔ)[J];理論界;2007年10期

本文編號(hào)：2214165