票据质押效力范畴界分辨析

An Analysis on the Division of Domain of Legal Effects of Pledge on Negotiable Instruments

票据质押规范分别规定于票据法及民法典物权编,其间呈现出规范体系应有的内在统一性,所谓制度冲突完全是阐释者建构的论述体系所自致。对于票据质押应否界分为票据法上的票据质押和物权法上的票据质押,认可物权法于此有独立适用价值的多为票据法学者,不认可物权法于此有独立适用价值的多为物权法学者。这一学科本业与立论倾向之关联异于常态的学术现象,反映出语境设置与前见定识可以严重影响阐释过程。利用现行法提供的规范资源,将票据质押效力在票据法与物权法之间作精准界分,既能更有效地提升相关制定法的适用效能,也能更充分地满足票据质押实践的制度需求。

The norms for pledge on negotiable instruments are stipulated in the Law of Negotiable Instruments and the Part of Real Rights in the Civil Code, which show the inherent unity of the normative system. The so-called institutional conflict is entirely caused by the system of interpretation among the scholars. Regarding whether the pledge on negotiable instruments should be divided into the pledge in the law of negotiable instruments and the pledge in the law of real rights, most scholars who agree that the pledge in the law of real rights has its own value of legal application are scholars of the law of negotiable instruments, and those who do not agree are scholars of the law of real rights. This unusual academic phenomenon of different arguments by scholars from different disciplines reflects that the context setting and preunderstanding can seriously affect the interpretation process. Using the normative resources provided by the current laws to make precise demarcations on the legal effects of the pledge on negotiable instruments between the law of negotiable instruments and the law of real rights, can not only effectively improve the application efficiency of the relevant statutes, but also more fully meet the institutional needs of the practice of pledge on negotiable instruments.