论票据质押背书的效力——《票据法》与《物权法》之间立法冲突的协调  

Perspective on the Efficacy of Endorsement for Pledge with Respect to Pledge of Negotiable Instruments

作　　者：熊丙万[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《当代法学》2009年第4期13-22,共10页Contemporary Law Review

摘　　要：在我国《票据法》和《物权法》中,质押背书对票据出质具有不同的作用,于前者为生效要件,于后者则没有要求。尽管如此,两个法律文件关于票据出质的规则并不存在根本冲突。当事人既可按照《票据法》经质押背书设立票据法上的票据质权,也可以按照普通债权质押设立物权法上的票据质权。只不过,根据不同法律规则设立的票据质权在内容上存在差异,且未经背书的票据质押因为不符合背书这一技术要求而不具备《票据法》上的特别效力。According to negotiable instruments law, endorsement is an essential requirement for the pledge of negotiable instruments, while it is not a necessity when the negotiable instruments are pledged in light of Real property Law. However, the former law can not be held accordingly as in contradiction with the latter one. The holders of negotiable instruments can pledge them according to either negotiable instruments law or real property Law, which will grant pledges different kind of efficacy under respective laws. In a word, the pledges without endorsement should not invoke the articles in negotiable instruments law.

关 键 词：票据质押 质押背书 票据法上的票据质权 物权法上的票据质权 

分 类 号：D922.287[政治法律—经济法学] D923.2[政治法律—法学]