论不当得利返还请求权的定性与体系安排

不当得利返还请求权行使的前提是标的物的权属已经合法转移至相对人,但相对人承受相应利益缺乏正当性支撑,由此决定该请求权的性质与物权请求权、侵权责任之间的不兼容;不当得利返还请求权也不是对各种基础性权利都能进行救济,其针对的是既非契约又非侵权的事实所产生的法律关系,不宜理解为针对各种基础关系的综合性救济权。不当得利返还请求权之功能在于为因物权变动本身的合法性、物权请求权失去物权基础后的利益失衡提供救济,不当得利返还请求权性质的此种认定可使其与其它请求权一起共同构成一个和谐而完整的民法请求权体系。     

关于物上请求权的若干思考

物上请求权是物权人享有的、请求妨害人或法院排除妨害 ,恢复对物正常支配的权利。物上请求权来源于物权 ,但却独立于物权 ;因物上请求权特殊的行使条件、目的、方式而与债权请求权相异。从督促权利人维护权利及整个社会经济有效率的发展和进步等因素考虑 ,物上请求权的行使应有时效的限制。权利人在行使物上请求权时如果发生与其他权利的竟合 ,物上请求权应有优先的效力。     

物权保全请求权

物权保全请求权是物权请求权的一项重要权利 ,也是物权法制定中必须研究的课题。为完善我国有关立法 ,应将物权请求权作为物权的效力加以明确 ,使物权保全请求权取得独立于民事责任的地位 ;明确物权请求权的的行使要件 ,使之与民事责任的承担要件相区别 ,并使其构成区别于损害赔偿请求权 ;考虑物权保全请求权在其他领域的扩张适用 ,可规定类推适用条款。     

"住改商"应当经全体利害关系业主同意

将区分所有建筑物的住宅改变为经营性用房("住改商"),除应遵守法律、法规以及管理规约外,另外一个非常重要的条件就是利害关系业主同意.由于"住改商"属于区分所有建筑物的相邻关系范畴,利害关系业主应当按照相邻关系进行判断,超出容忍限度受到损害的业主是利害关系业主,本栋建筑物内的业主属于利害关系业主,其他业主主张利害关系的则需要举证证明."住改商"应当经全体利害关系业主同意,并且同意的方式应采用明示的方法.未经利害关系业主同意的"住改商",利害关系业主可以行使物权请求权和侵权请求权.     

论物权请求权的性质——以物权请求权与罗马法诉权之关系变迁为视角

物权请求权发轫于罗马法的诉权,凭借对物之诉和对人之诉存在于罗马法中。在部门法运动和中世纪法学理论的推动下,物权请求权分立于罗马诉权。尽管物权请求权承继罗马诉权的程序功能,且得诉权之行使方可实现,但是物权请求权非因之而附着于诉权,而是独立于诉权,发展为横跨实体权利与诉讼程序之间的桥梁,为物权的顺利实现提供服务和保障。但物权请求权不附属于物权,也非物权的效力所致,它是异于物权的,在物权存续期间,于一物的同一类型的物权请求权因同质的侵害行为会反复出现,但基于物权请求权的相对性和相对人的变化,此时的物权请求权与彼时的物权请求权并非同质,物权请求权是一种相对独立于物权的请求权。正是基于物权请求权的此等属性,物权请求权才可能成为诉讼时效的客体。     

物权请求权论

物权请求权论倪万英张宏伟在民法物权制度中，物权权利人是所有权人和所有权以外的享有不完全物权的他物权人。当物权权利人行使权利受到妨碍时，就享有排除他人干涉的权利，这就是物权请求权。一、物权请求权的产生及立法例（一）物权请求权的产生物权是权利主...     

占有保护请求权若干问题探讨

占有保护请求权的价值功能在于保护社会平和稳定的秩序 ,提高对权利保护的效率。占有保护请求权与物权请求权在行使方法、性质、功能等方面存在较大差异 ,在逻辑定位上是与物权请求权、债权请求权相并立的一种请求权。占有保护请求权对于保护农地使用人的合法权益 ,意义尤为重要。     

关于侵权责任的几个问题

侵权行为应为除违约行为外侵害他人权利或法益的不法行为;侵权责任是因侵权行为发生的民事责任,不应仅限于侵权损害赔偿责任。物权请求权为物权的内在效力,物权人行使物权请求权时相对人负担的义务实质也是侵权的责任,不同于原来的义务;物权法上应规定物权请求权,同时侵权法上也应规定物权请求权相对人的侵权责任。从现行法上诉讼时效的概念上说,物权请求权为救济性权利,是权利人请求保护其权利的权利,应适用诉讼时效,但物权请求权等绝对权请求权不应适用诉讼时效,对此在侵权行为法或诉讼时效制度中应做出明确规定。     

按份共有分割请求权若干问题研究

基于对按份共有分割请求权的整体思考，理论和实务中值得探讨的问题是：共有分割请求权的性质，分割协议的性质、分割协议达成与否对诉讼分割的影响、分割协议上的请求权与诉讼时效的关系，诉讼分割中的拍变卖分割方法、分割请求权的代位行使，分割请求权所受限制登记和动产查封的限制，分割请求权行使的法律后果即分割效力的发生、法定抵押权的设立、对共有物上用益物权和担保物权所产生的法律后果等。     

论出卖人返还财产请求权的属性及限制——以合同被撤销为切入点

因为我国法在物权变动模式上未采纳物权形式主义的立场,故当买卖合同被撤销后,出卖人请求返还买卖标的物的权利兼具不当得利返还请求权这一债权请求权和原物返还请求权这一物权请求权的双重权利属性。出卖人请求返还买卖标的物这一权利是否适用诉讼时效,应根据权利人请求权基础及标的物类型予以区别:若权利人主张行使不当得利返还请求权,不论返还标的物是动产还是不动产,均适用诉讼时效;若权利人主张行使原物返还请求权,仅在返还标的物属于普通动产或未登记特殊动产时,才有适用诉讼时效的空间。基于有效维护交易安全、保护当事人合法权益的考量,出卖人请求返还买卖标的物的权利不能对抗善意占有的第三人,且不论第三人所享有的是物权还是债权。未来制定我国民法典司法解释宜对此加以明确规定。     

The Mythology of Human Rights

Abstract. A special legal status is accorded to human rights within Western liberal democracies: They enjoy a priority over other human goods and are not subjected to the majoritarian principle. The underlying assumption—the idea that there are some human values that deserve special protection—implies the need for both a normative and a conceptual justification. This paper claims that neither can be provided. The normative justification is needed to support the priority of human rights over other human goods and to rank and balance conflicting human rights, but it can't be provided because of the fact of pervasive value pluralism, the fact that human values are many, incompatible and incommensurable. The conceptual justification is needed to avoid arbitrariness in the interpretation of human rights at the adjudication stage. Such a justification is impossible, however, as the concept of human rights, and the concepts used to justify them and to solve their conflicts are “essentially contested concepts.” The paper concludes that, provided that the interpretation of human rights presupposes value judgements and political choices, the special legal status accorded to human rights is not justified.     

Democracy out of Reason? Comment on Rainer Forst's “The Rule of Reasons”

In my paper, I comment on Rainer Forst's paper in this issue. I raise doubts as to whether the justification of democracy emerges from a fundamental moral right to reciprocal and general justification, as Forst claims. His basic argument appears questionable because democracy is different from a "hypothetical-consent-conception" of moral legitimacy, which limits as well as enables democratic legitimacy. The former cannot, however, justify the latter through an argument centered on self-government: Such an argument relies heavily on the possibility of consensus, thus neglecting the crucial phenomenon of disagreement or dissent. As a result of not adequately dealing with this phenomenon, the argument is unable to account for the basic democratic principle of majority rule as the remedy at hand.     

The Enjoyment of Rights and Freedoms: A New Conception of the 'Ambit' under Article 14 ECHR

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied by the UK judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998, is in danger of becoming as 'parasitic' as it is often described. Judges have inappropriately narrowed the scope of the 'ambit' of other Convention articles, and thus limited the number of claims to which Article 14 can apply, by defining it according to considerations more properly weighed in a justification analysis incorporating proportionality. The emerging approach departs from Strasbourg jurisprudence, and fails to give full effect to the language and intent of Article 14. This trend need not continue. This article begins the process of fashioning a new conception of the ambit of Convention articles: one that could change the fortunes of Article 14 cases in the UK, but that flows naturally from the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, and gives effect to the spirit of the HRA.     

法律实证主义的强立场——兼评拉兹《法律的权威》

在法律与道德的关系上,拉兹认为有效法律的鉴别标准完全排除道德论证,这就是拉兹的渊源论.渊源论表明所有的法律都具有渊源,渊源论的论据来自权威论.权威以理由为基础,是改变行为理由的能力.法律也要主张权威,法律主张合法性权威是它的一个本质特征.权威性理由是排他性理由,排除了道德因素的可能性,权威论支持了渊源论.权威论受到了来自包容性实证主义者和德沃金的批评,他们的争论共同推进了对法律与道德关系问题的研究.     

阐释:在制度与理念之间——关于物权行为合理性的若干思考

理论是沟通制度与理念的桥梁。物权行为理论乃是基于登记的限度理念,对现有的登记生效主义模式所做的有利于私法自治的一种理论阐述。登记限度的理念要求尽可能地降低成本、避免错误、尊重自由,为此,登记生效主义确立了物权变动时双方共同申请的原则,并且使双方申请时达成的合意成为登记效力的来源,从而与申请前的债权合同相区别,成为物权行为。尽管登记同意和公证制度的出现极大地替代了双方申请原则,但登记同意和公证替代的不彻底,反而更突出了物权行为理论阐释的合理性。     

物权法定原则

物权法定原则决定了物权法的基本性质与特征,也严格地限制了当事人在创设新型物权、改变既有物权之内容等方面的意思自由。物权法定原则的内涵是指物权的种类、内容、效力以及公示方法由法律规定,原则上不能由法律之外的规范性文件进行规定,也不能允许当事人自由创设物权的种类以及确定物权的内容、效力和公示方法。作者比较了物权法定模式的表述方式和基本功能,并认为我国物权法中物权法定中的“法”应当被主要限定为法律;司法解释应当具有一定的创设物权的功能;判例不能创设物权。当事人关于物权设定的约定违反物权法定原则的法律后果,应当根据不同的情况来确定。     

Justice Between Sites of Justice

Michael Blake argues that states are the primary sites of justice for persons and that the function of international justice is to ensure that states interact with each other in ways that preserve the capacity of each to realize justice for their own members. This paper will argue that justice among states requires more of states than that they preserve and maintain each other's capacity as primary sites of justice. Justice among states will require some justification, as well, of the claims of states over resources and territory within their borders. Such a justification, I suggest, must presume a global institutional order, and this will introduce the problem of coercion in the international domain. International coercion will have implications for Blake's understanding of international economic justice since it is premised on the claim that the domestic context is coercive in a way that the international arena is not.     

The Powell Hypothesis: Race and non-capital sentences for murder in Kentucky, 1976–1991

The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCleskey v. Kemp ruled, in part, that the findings of the Baldus study, offered by the petitioner to support a claim of racial bias in death penalty cases, were insufficient to demonstrate unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Lewis Powell offered additional justification for the ruling when he wrote, “If we accepted McCleskey’s claim that racial bias has impermissibly tainted the capital sentencing decision, we could soon be faced with similar claims as to other types of penalty. ” This statement has become labeled as the “Powell Hypothesis. ” This paper tests the “Powell Hypothesis” to determine whether race has an impact on sentences levied in noncapital murder cases in Kentucky between 1976 and 1991. The results indicate racial factors influenced sentence length in these cases.     

法律逻辑：回顾与展望

法律逻辑的历史大致分为三个阶段：第一阶段主要是建立以传统逻辑或一阶逻辑内容为框架的法律逻辑体系,并将这些理论广泛地运用于法律思维领域之中;第二阶段主要是从法律适用问题的研究扩展到了法律发现或获取问题的研究;第三阶段主要是对事实发现、法律获取、诉讼主张与裁决证成的规律、规则与方法进行系统的研究,逐渐地建立以事实推理、法律推理、判决推理与法律论证理论为主要内容的不同于传统逻辑与一阶逻辑框架的法律逻辑体系,并将这些理论应用于事实的发现、法律的获取、诉讼主张与裁决的证立之中。     

The Priority of Politics and Procedure over Perfectionism in Penal Law, or, Blackmail in Perspective

Criminal law theory concerns itself with the justification of punishment. Conflicting moral theories of punishment will be held in liberal democracies. The positive law therefore neither will nor should reflect exclusively a single moral theory of punishment. Like the institutions for making law, the institutions for enforcing it will cause punishments imposed to deviate from what pure moral theory might prescribe. These claims are illustrated by the debate over blackmail prohibition. The best rationale for prohibition is not the moral argument that blackmailers culpably cause harm, but the political argument that blackmailers threaten the state’s claimed monopoly on punishing crime.