论债权相对性和第三人对债权侵害.pdfVIP

内 容 提 要 一般认为 债权的相对性决定了债的效力只能及于特定的当事人而与第 三人无涉 债是一个完全封闭的关系 第三人也不可能侵害债权 但在世界 范围内 越来越多的司法实践却纷纷认为 第三人侵害债权 可以成立侵权 行为 债权具有不可侵性 债在罗马法上被视为法锁 罗马法对形式的重视远远超过了对当事人意 思自治的关注 其功能主要在于秩序的维护 后来的法学家们对债进行改造 赋予了债权相对性新的底蕴 让其承载了债权的自由价值与秩序价值 相对 性与不可侵害性是债权在不同领域分别表现出来的两种特性 债的相对性谈 的是个人意思自治 表达的是对个人意思的尊重 而债权的不可侵害性谈的 是社会公共意志的问题 个人意思自治根本不是考虑的对象 故两者可以并 存于债权中 在第三人侵害债权的责任构成要件方面 因为债权具有非公示性 所以 其构成要件非常严格 我们需要在一定限度内赋予法官更多的自由裁量权 在个案判决中引入习惯 善良风俗等抽象标准进行个案判定 然后以司法实 践指导立法 对具体侵害债权的行为进行类型化 2 Abstract It’s generally believed that the relativity of creditor’s rights decides that creditor ’s rights could only reach specified counter-parties instead of affecting a third party. It is impossible for a third party to infringe the creditor’s rights. More and more judicial practices worldwide tend to find that a third party could infringe the creditor ’s rights. Creditor ’s rights also bear the nature of not being allow to be infringed at will. In Roman law, the functions of contracts mainly aimed to maintain order. Jurist of later ages reformed creditor’s rights to endow the relativity of creditor’s rights with new significance. Creditor ’s rights’ relativity and possibility to be infringed fall into different aspects of creditor ’s rights and could co-exist in creditor ’s right. The relativity of creditor’s rights means being self- governed by their own intent, which expresses respect for individuals, while the illegality to infringe creditor ’s rights is something relating to social will, which focuses on social order. Since it’s impossible to make all creditor ’s rights public, the constituting factors to impose liabilities on a third party on