本文關(guān)鍵詞：我國遺囑自由限制研究　出處：《吉林大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 遺囑自由 遺囑自由限制 制度缺陷 立法完善

【摘要】：遺囑自由，是指遺囑人遵照自己的意愿于生前訂立遺囑自由處分其個人財產(chǎn)的自由。遺囑自由原則作為《繼承法》的重要原則之一，與意思自治原則一樣體現(xiàn)了對公民私人所有權(quán)的保護和對個人意志的尊重，閃耀著現(xiàn)代私法的光輝，象征著人類文明的演進。然而任何自由都是有限度的，遺囑自由也不例外。因為權(quán)利的過度擴張總是伴隨著權(quán)利的濫用，人的本性決定了人在行為時往往從個人的好惡、偏愛出發(fā)，極易受感情因素的影響而做出一些損害國家、社會和其他家庭成員利益的行為，這種現(xiàn)象僅僅依靠道德的約束是無法避免的，因此法律在尊重遺囑自由的同時應(yīng)當人為地設(shè)置一道安全屏障，使遺囑人在屏障范圍內(nèi)合理地行使其遺囑自由，這樣既能最大限度的發(fā)揮其意思自治又不損害他人的利益。 世界各國在對待遺囑自由限制的問題上，都持肯定的態(tài)度，在尊重遺囑自由的同時，都對遺囑自由實行了一定的限制，這些限制要受到倫理道德、婚姻家制等因素的影響。各國法律都較為原則性的規(guī)定遺囑行為不得與法律規(guī)定相抵觸、不得違反社會的公共秩序和善良風俗，除此之外各國還根據(jù)自身的國情制定了符合自身社會發(fā)展狀況的制度。在遺囑自由限制的問題上，大陸法系國家在承襲羅馬法的基礎(chǔ)上構(gòu)建現(xiàn)代特留份制度；英美法系國家主要通過適當撫養(yǎng)費制度、寡婦產(chǎn)、鰥夫產(chǎn)、宅院特留份等制度以平衡遺囑自由和其他社會利益之間的關(guān)系。這些制度雖然在具體規(guī)定上有所差異，，但都在一定程度上有效地平衡了遺囑自由和其他利益之間的關(guān)系。 我國的遺囑自由限制立法主要體現(xiàn)在《中華人民共和國繼承法》第19條、第28條以及《關(guān)于貫徹執(zhí)行中華人民共和國繼承法若干問題的意見》第37條、第45條和第61條中。理論界通常將上述規(guī)定稱為必留份制度，必留份制度在微觀上為遺囑自由劃出了“禁區(qū)”。除此之外《中華人民共和國民法通則》第7條規(guī)定的“公序良俗”原則在宏觀上為遺囑自由原則劃定了“邊界”。宏觀原則和微觀規(guī)定相互配合，形成了我國的遺囑自由限制立法。然而我國的必留份制度自身存在著諸多缺陷，很多時候這些缺陷使其遺囑自由限制的目的落空。本文概括總結(jié)了我國立法所存在的缺陷，具體包括：（1）保護范圍過窄致使需要保護的繼承人的利益得不到保護。（2）相關(guān)規(guī)定體例安排不合理以致遺囑自由限制得不到合理的重視。（3）僅有的必留份規(guī)定流于形式、不易操作等等。這些缺陷使得我國的遺囑自由限制立法無法發(fā)揮其應(yīng)有的作用，我國社會上濫用遺囑自由的情況時有發(fā)生。 我國的遺囑自由限制立法如此寬松絕不是出于對遺囑自由的追求，而是由當時特定的政治、經(jīng)濟、社會背景下立法上的疏忽導致的。我國《繼承法》頒布至今已三十余年，法律的滯后性使得當時的制度無法有效地規(guī)制現(xiàn)今的行為。目前，我國正值《民法典》制定之際，未來《民法典》繼承法編必將做出相關(guān)規(guī)定為遺囑自由找到恰當?shù)牡拙�。針對我國遺囑自由限制的立法完善，本文提出以下幾方面建議：（1）完善我國必留份制度。（2）構(gòu)建配偶特留份制度。（3）排除健康成年子女的利益保護。
[Abstract]:The freedom of Testament, refers to the testator comply with their wishes on living wills freedom to dispose of their personal property. The freedom of testament freedom principle as "one of the important principles of inheritance law", and the principle of autonomy as embodies the protection of citizens' private ownership and respect for the will of the individual, shining bright symbol of modern private law, with the evolution of human civilization. But any freedom is limited, the freedom of testament is no exception. Because of the excessive expansion of rights is always accompanied by the abuse of rights, determines the nature of man in behavior often from personal preference, preference of vulnerable to emotional factors and make some damage to the country. Other family members and social interests, is unable to avoid this phenomenon only rely on the moral constraints, so the law in respect of the testamentary freedom should also be artificially set a Daoan The full screen barrier enables the testator to exercise its testamentary freedom within the scope of the barrier, so that it can not only maximize its autonomy but also do no harm to the interests of others.
All the countries in the world towards the limitation of testamentary freedom issues, positive attitude, in respect of the testamentary freedom of testamentary freedom at the same time, imposed certain restrictions, these restrictions should be ethical and moral factors, marriage and family system. The law stipulated the principle will not act with legal provisions. Conflict, shall not violate the social public order and good customs, in addition to the countries according to their own national conditions to develop in line with their own development and social system. The limitation of testamentary freedom on the issue of civil law countries to build a modern legitim system based on inherited Rome law; common law countries mainly through appropriate compensation fee system, widowed and widower, the relationship between house legitim system to balance between the freedom of Testament and other social interests. Although these systems differ in specific provisions But, to a certain extent, it effectively balances the relationship between the freedom of the will and other interests.
Limitation of testamentary freedom legislation in China is mainly reflected in the inheritance law > nineteenth < < People's Republic of China, twenty-eighth and thirty-seventh on the implementation of opinions on issues of People's Republic of China's law of inheritance, forty-fifth and sixty-first. The theoretical circle usually referred to as the rules will leave a system, will leave a system at the micro level is the freedom of testament out of the "forbidden area". In addition < People's Republic of China > seventh general principles of the civil law stipulates that the principle of public order and good custom at the macro level to the principle of testamentary freedom to define "boundary". The principle of macro and micro regulation with each other, forming a restriction of freedom of testament legislation in China. However, China will remain the system itself has many defects, many of these defects make the limitation of testamentary freedom to fail. This paper summarized the defects of existing legislation including: (1) the protection of fan The need to protect the surrounding narrow heir's interests are not protected. (2) the relevant provisions of style arrangements are not reasonable that the restriction of a free will without reasonable attention. (3) only must leave copies of formal rules, easy to operate and so on. These defects will make our self limited by legislation can not play its due role in our society, the abuse of the freedom of the will occur.
Limitation of testamentary freedom legislation in China is not so loose for the freedom to pursue, but by the time the specific political, economic, neglect of legislation on social background. China's inheritance law has been promulgated < > thirty years, legal lag time makes the behavior of system can not effectively regulate the current at present, our country is in the enactment of the Civil Code > < < >, the future civil code inheritance law will make the relevant provisions for free will find the right bottom line. For perfecting the restriction of freedom of testament legislation, this paper puts forward the following suggestions: (1) on perfecting necessary heirship system in China. (2) construction of spouse legitim system. (3) out of the protection of the interests of healthy adult children.

【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 周輝斌;淺析法官自由裁量權(quán)的獲得與運用——我國首例“第三者”繼承遺產(chǎn)案判決之我見[J];法學雜志;2002年04期

2 夏吟蘭;對中國夫妻共同財產(chǎn)范圍的社會性別分析——兼論家務(wù)勞動的價值[J];法學雜志;2005年02期

3 龍翼飛;;婚姻家庭法律制度與構(gòu)建和諧社會[J];法學家;2007年01期

4 吳國平;;我國遺產(chǎn)特留份制度之立法構(gòu)建[J];法治研究;2011年06期

5 郭俊;;《繼承法》修改熱點問題評析[J];河南教育學院學報(哲學社會科學版);2013年04期

6 張華貴,冉啟玉;論配偶繼承權(quán)的法律保護[J];西南政法大學學報;2005年02期

7 蔣月;;論遺囑自由之限制:立法干預的正當性及其路徑[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2012年05期

8 陳葦;段燕;;中國法學會婚姻家庭法學研究會2012年年會綜述[J];西南政法大學學報;2013年01期

本文編號：1399694