反思财产法制建设中的“事前研究”方法
冉昊反思财产法制建设中的“事前研究”方法
Reflections on the “ex-ante Approach” in the Construction of Property Law
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：冉昊
单位：中国社会科学院法学研究所
中文关键词：对物权;权利束;事前研究;信息成本;法经济学
英文关键词：right in rem;bundle of rights;ex-ante approach;information cost;law and economics
中文摘要：
传统法学通常遵循“事后研究”方法,依既定财产权类型和规范来解决纠纷,而上世纪兴起并迅猛发展的法经济学则采用“事前研究”方法,在纠纷发生后通过效率论证来重新确定各个权利束的顺位高下。但实际上,传统法学的权利类型在“对物”与“对人”等名义差别下具有排他性范围上的本质差异,而“事前研究”方法借助于分析法学的“权利束”理解,将这种差别完全消隐,会导致各种权益排他性范围的无序扩大,引起整个社会交往安全和收益安全秩序的偏差。从时代发展的动态过程来看,二者之差异其实无关正误,而端在于时代要求从秩序安全向福利最大化的变迁。以此反观,在我国从无到有的财产法制建设中,必须专注我们特殊的历史起点,撇开各种炫目的流派、主张,依据常识展开真正的本土化思考;必须坚持“对物”财产权的系统理解,同时在其中设计充分的开放性进口,提高个案的效率。
英文摘要：
Conventional law usually follows the “ex-post approach”, resolving disputes in accordance with the established types and related norms of different rights. In contrast, Law and Economics, which rapidly developed from last century, follows the “ex-ante approach”, resolving disputes by competing all the “right bundles” against each other after the dispute through efficiency analysis, so as to make re-arrangement of the priorities among them. However, we should notice that, in the traditional judicial understandings, there has always been an essential distinction between the nature of different right types, i.e., the heterogeneity in respect of the extent of exclusiveness of the categories of “right in rem” and “right in persona”. Whereas Law and Economics, completely ignoring the distinction of the nature through analytical conception of “bundle of rights”, may expand the exclusivity of all rights and interests to chaos, hence resulting in great harm to the security of transaction as well as to the property income of the whole society. However, from the perspective of the dynamics of epochal movement, the difference between the two approaches is not a matter of right and wrong; instead, it merely reflects the responses to an incremental movement from the societal need for order and security to the need for welfare maximization. Taking this into consideration, we must focus our attention on China's unique historical start point in the development of property law, disregard various fancy schools of thought and/or propositions, and reflect on the question of localization on the basis common sense. We must adhere to the systematic understanding of the in rem nature of property rights while at the same time be open-minded in designing and recognizing categories of property rights in general so as to resolve disputes over property rights in individual cases in a more efficient way.
全文阅读： 点击下载
