论文部分内容阅读
我国《物权法》第35条规定的排除妨害请求权和消除危险请求权属于传统民法上的防御性(物上)请求权。但是,长期以来,我国立法、司法解释与著述对于防御性请求权相关语词的使用呈现多元化,出现了“排除妨害”、“排除妨碍”、“后果排除”、“停止侵害”、“消除危险”、“妨害防止”、“不作为请求权”等多种表述,以致在一定程度上影响了对法律实体内容的安排和理解。通过考察上述相关语词的渊源及其异同与优劣,可以得出的结论是,应当以我国《物权法》第35条的规定为基础,认定防御性请求权包括排除妨害请求权与消除危险请求权两种,其中后者相当于比较法上的妨害防止请求权,而尽量不再使用其他容易引起混淆的语词,尤其是我国立法和著述以前常用的停止侵害概念。
China’s “Property Law” provisions of Article 35 of the right to exclude obstruction and eliminate the right to claim belongs to the traditional civil law defensive (on property) claims. However, for a long time, the use of the relevant terms of defensive claims has been diversified in our country’s legislation, judicial interpretation and writings, with the appearance of “exclusion”, “exclusion”, “exclusion of consequences” Stop infringement “, ” eliminate danger “, ” prevent harm “, ” not as the right to request “and other expressions, which to a certain extent, affected the arrangement and understanding of the legal entity content. By examining the origin of the related terms and their advantages and disadvantages, it can be concluded that the defensive claim should be based on the provisions of Article 35 of the ”Property Law" of our country, including excluding the right to claim and the right to eliminate the risk Two of them, the latter of which are equivalent to the prejudice prevention right of comparative law, try not to use any other words that are likely to cause confusion, especially the concept of cessation of infringement which is commonly used in our country’s legislation and writings.