兩種責任理念的碰撞與三種不同的思路－－我國民法體系矛盾的解決方案

The Collisions between Two Different Approaches of Liability and Three Routes-- Solutions to Contradictions in Chinese Civil Law System

德國民法上的責任是違反債的責任，是債法的組成部分。我國民法上的責任是違反民事義務的後果，責任超出了債的範疇。我國《物權法》規定的物權請求權是德國民法上責任理念的反映，造成我國民法體系矛盾。對此有三種不同的觀點和思路，即多種侵權責任方式否定說、侵權責任與物權請求權競合說、物權請求權變革為侵權責任請求權說。筆者主張後說。德國民法上的請求權附屬和服務於“基礎權利”體系，我國民法上的請求權附屬和服務於“權利－－義務－－責任體系”。本文進一步闡述了將保護性絕對權請求權變革為侵權責任請求權的理論根據和立法方案。

Liability in German civil law is the result of breach of obligations, and it is one part of obligation law. However, liability in Chinese civil law is the result of breach of duties, and it is out of the scope of obligation. The right in rem prescribed in Property Law of the People’s Republic of China reflects the approach of liability in German civil law, and this consequently has created contradictions in Chinese civil law system. There are three different routes to solving the contradictions. They are respectively theory of denying its nature of tort liability, theory of recognizing the concurrence of right in rem and liability claim, and theory of transforming right in rem to liability claim. It is the last one that I am advocating. Right to claim in German civil law is subordinate to the system of basic rights, while right to claim in Chinese civil law is built upon the structure of right--duties--liability system. This article elaborates the theoretical justifications and legislative schemes to transform and reshape right to claim in protecting absolute rights to liability claim.