论租赁权的本质——占有权  

On the Essence of Leasehold——Occupancy Right

作　　者：鲍家志[1] 蒙旭[1] 

机构地区：[1]广西大学法学院,广西南宁530004

出　　处：《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2005年第6期86-90,共5页Journal of Guangxi Administrative Cadre Institute of Politics and Law

摘　　要：关于“租赁权”本质之争,有三种学说:“债权说”、“物权化债权说”和“占有权说”。“债权说”以租赁权之设立原因行为与权利本质混淆起来,应予以抛弃;“物权化债权说”,混淆了权利与权能之关系,并以违反物权法定主义为由否定租赁权为物权说,值得质疑。传统物权理论,无法对租赁权本质做出合理圆满解释;“物权二元结构论”清楚地剖析了租赁权的法律关系。因此,租赁权应为物权,实为占有权。There are three theories of the essence of leasehold： the theory of creditor＇s right, the theory of propertying-creditor＇right and the theory of occupancy right. The theory of credior＇right garble instauration causal conduct of leasehold and the essence of leasehold. So it must be abandoned. The second theory garble the relation of right and the effect of right. And it is suspectabal that this theory try to deny the opinion that the leasehold is property by the reason of that opinion disobey the theory of statutory property. The traditional property theorys cannot explane the question of the essence of leasehold perfectly. But the theory of dualistic framework of property explane the legal relation of the leasehold explicitly. So leasehold should be a kind of property. It is the occupancy right.

关 键 词：租赁权 物权化债权说 物权二元结构论 占有权 物权法定主义 物权化 二元结构论 债权说 原因行为 物权理论 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学] D913[政治法律—法学]