是制訂“物權法”還是制訂“財產法”？－－鄭成思教授的建議引發的思考

民法法典化過程中是制訂“物權法”還是“財產法”的問題，鄭成思教授刊發了三篇文章論述。針對鄭成思教授的有關論述，文章進行了相反的論證和批判，提出以下的觀點：（一）我國民法學者一直以民法是調整人與人之間的關系為認識基礎，並未認為民法是調節人與物的關系的觀點；（二）在物權的本質問題上，我國大陸民法學者沒有認為它是一種人對物的關系；（三）國外民法典立法成例有三編制、四編制、五編制、六編制、七編制、九編制和十編制等，遠非僅有法國民法典的三編制，將民法典歸納為三個部分（即人、財產權和債權）也並非更加合理和科學；（四）財產、財產權和財產法的概念有廣義和狹義兩種理解和區分，債權可以屬於廣義上的財產權；（五）法國民法典和德國民法典的制訂取決於各自的法律傳統和學術背景，與歷史唯物主義無關；（六）法國民法典沒有採用物權概念是受到當時法學發展程度的限制，現在的法國民法理論已廣泛採納物權概念和體系；（七）人類社會的生活以有形財產為基礎，但也並不排除無形財產在當今社會中發揮越來越重要的作用，正在制訂中的物權法並不是旨在制訂一部調整一切財產關系的基本法，而只是以調整有形財產歸屬關系為主的基本法律。

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 mean-time. 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 r e m in the France Civil C o d e 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.