债的概念:解构与重构

The Concept of Obligation:Deconstruction and Reconstruction

德国民法体系将合同、侵权、不当得利合称为债,并认为债编总则是三者提出的公因式,忽略了三者的根本不同。即令三者都有债权、债务,物权法也同样产生此种法律关系。因为所有债之法律关系的特征,都可以用以描述物之法律关系,物债二分之说无法成立。物权和人格权对世产生原生义务,合同在缔约人间产生原生义务。应以对世、对人的区分、排他程度高低、法律关系之中介等三条轴线,取代物债二分。不当得利与侵权责任都是原生义务未被履行后,转化成的次生义务,与合同、财产、人格是不同层次的概念。在《民法典》第118、468条下重构债的概念之方式为:债权就是请求权,而债是合同关系、物上关系、人格关系之上位概念。若日后《民法典》有大幅修改的契机,则应删除债的用语,告别债的概念。

Using obligation as the umbrella term for contract,torts and unjust enrichment,and conceptualizing the general principles of obligation as the common factors utterly ignore the fundamental differences among the three.Granted,all three create claims—duties,but so does the law of property.The dichotomy of obligation and thing,a so-called fundamental principle,is contradictory as it ignores the claims—duties created by property law.Property and personality both create in rem primary claims—duties,whereas contracts create in personam primary claims-duties between the signing parties.The dichotomy of obligation and thing should be replaced by a new theory of three axes:the distinction between in rem and in personam,the extent of exclusion,and the mediation of jural relationships.Unjust enrichment and torts are nothing but secondary claims—duties transformed from unfulfilled primary claims—duties;thus,they are conceptually distinct from property,personality,and contracts.Given Articles 118 and 468 of the Civil Code,which include the term obligation,obligation should be reconceptualized in the following ways:an obligational right is coterminous with a claim,and obligation is an umbrella term for contractual relationship,property relationship and personhood relationship.If the Civil Code could be reformed in the future,the term obligation should be avoided.