再论界定准物权客体的思维模式及方法

Rethinking the Mode and Method of Defining the Object of Quasi-Real Right

将自然资源界定为准物权的客体,只有将权利抵押权和权利质权排除于准物权的体系才可成立,且需要进一步类型化。对于野生动物,至少有三种解读,即原物与其成分及其关系、单一物与集合物简单对应关系、单一物与双重集合物对应关系。每种解读的法律构成和效果不尽相同。"一定之水"与"局部的水资源"所指向的对象在实质上相同,而非不同,但以哪个为基点,在理论说明上会有微妙的变化。狩猎权的客体不是单一的个体野生动物,也不是单一的狩猎场所,而是一定的狩猎场所与其承载的局部的野生动物资源。

To define the natural resource as the object of the quasi--real right, the pledge of rights should be excluded from the system of quasi--real rights, and further classification is still needed. Still, if such definition is widely accepted, we should realize that the design of our Real Right Law and its corresponding theory have some defects. There are at least three methods to understand the wild animals. Firstly, an individual wild animal is the component of the wild animal resource, and the latter is an abstract entirety. Secondly, an individual wild animal is a single thing in civil law, while the whole wild animals constitute an assembled thing. Thirdly, not only the whole wild animals constitute an assembled thing, but several wild animals inhabited in certain hunting area also constitute an assembled thing. Different understandings have different legal constitutions and effects. The connotations of ＂certain water＂ and ＂partial water resource＂ are substantially the same. But based on different concepts, the theoretical interpretation will change subtly. The object of hunting right is not the individual wild animals only, or the hunting area by itself, but the hunting area with the partial wild animal resource inhabited in it.