是制订“物权法”还是制订“财产法”?——郑成思教授的建议引发的思考

"Law of right in rem" or "law of property"?——reflection on Professor Zheng Chengsi’s advice on our civil code

民法法典化过程中是制订'物权法'还是'财产法'的问题,郑成思教授刊发了三篇文章论述。针对郑成思教授的有关论述,文章进行了相反的论证和批判,提出以下的观点:(一)我国民法学者一直以民法是调整人与人之间的关系为认识基础,并未认为民法是调节人与物的关系的观点;(二)在物权的本质问题上,我国大陆民法学者没有认为它是一种人对物的关系;(三)国外民法典立法成例有三编制、四编制、五编制、六编制、七编制、九编制和十编制等,远非仅有法国民法典的三编制,将民法典归纳为三个部分(即人、财产权和债权)也并非更加合理和科学;(四)财产、财产权和财产法的概念有广义和狭义两种理解和区分,债权可以属于广义上的财产权;(五)法国民法典和德国民法典的制订取决于各自的法律传统和学术背景,与历史唯物主义无关;(六)法国民法典没有采用物权概念是受到当时法学发展程度的限制,现在的法国民法理论已广泛采纳物权概念和体系;(七)人类社会的生活以有形财产为基础,但也并不排除无形财产在当今社会中发挥越来越重要的作用,正在制订中的物权法并不是旨在制订一部调整一切财产关系的基本法,而只是以调整有形财产归属关系为主的基本法律。

Professor Zheng Chengsi wrote three articles on whether law of right in rem or law of property is necessary to our civil code in the meantime.Now this article from Professor Liang Huixing expresses some different ideas on the same topic.It says,firstly,our civil law scholars have kept the idea that civil law is just concerning the relationship between person and person while not between person and rem all the time;secondly,the essence of the law of right in rem is a kind of relationship between person and person,and nobody holds the different idea;thirdly,civil codes in different foreign countries have different frame while not just the three-chapter system in the France Civil Code,of which we don’t think it’s more reasonable;fourthly,we can understand the following three phrase,estate,property and law of property,from two different perspective and right in person can be catalogued as a kind of property from a macro-perspective;fifthly,the codification of the France civil law and the German civil law depend on their own different legal tradition and the different background of their own legal science;sixthly,we owes the absence of the conception of right in rem in the France Civil Code to the development of the legal science at that time and now this conception is widely accepted by France civil law scholars;seventhly,the life of we the human beings mainly depends on corporate things,but it does not necessarily excludes the role the incorporate things play today.Additionally,this latter role becomes more and more important.The law of right in rem now in preparing is not intended to cover everything we are just talking about,corporate or incorporate,but to consider corporate things only.