论文部分内容阅读
《德国民法典》第194条第1款和第241条第1款对请求权和债权概念所作的实质一致的界定,引发了两个概念的相互混淆。从法学史来看,混淆肇因于二者均与罗马法中的诉有着渊源关系,温德沙伊德在创设请求权概念时,忽视了其与既有债权概念的部分重叠,而此后两大概念涵盖范围在立法和理论上的扩张,则使二者的混淆进一步恶化。解决的方法是,依托二元实体私权体系和债务与责任之区分理论,建构请求权二元体系,重构债权体系,从而理顺二者之关系。
The substantively consistent definition of the concept of claims and claims in article 194, paragraph 1, and article 241, paragraph 1, of the German Civil Code raises the mutual confusion of two concepts. Judging from the history of law, the cause of confusion arises from the fact that both of them have a relationship with the lawsuits in Roman law. When Windsheid created the concept of claim, he ignores the partial overlapping of the concept with the existing creditor’s rights. The broader concept covers the legislative and theoretical expansion, then the two further aggravate the confusion. The solution is to build a binary system of claims and reconstruct the debt system, so as to rationalize the relationship between the two by relying on the distinction between the dual entity private rights system and the debt and liability.