论请求权与债权之关系混淆的历史成因与理论对策  

Research on the Historical Reasons and Theoretical Countermeasure of the Promiscuous Relationship between the Right of Claim and the Obligatory Right

作　　者：宋旭明[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海海事大学法学院,上海201306

出　　处：《河北法学》2010年第5期127-133,共7页Hebei Law Science

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究项目<请求权与债权之关系研究--兼论我国未来民法典中侵权法的地位>(09YJC820072);上海海事大学校基金项目<请求权与债权之关系研究--兼论我国未来民法典中侵权法的地位>(S2009187)

摘　　要：《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 substantial conformity between the definition of right of claim in article 194 section 1 and the obligatory right in article 241 section 1 in German Civil Code makes these two concepts mixed up. In the respect of history of law, their confusion was generated from the fact that both of them have originated relationsidp with litigation, and that Windscheid Bernhard ignored the overlap between them when he created the right of claim. Moreover, their expansion in legislation and theory worsened the confusion. To clear their relationship, we should establish a dualism system of right of claim, and reconstruct the system of obligation, which base on the theory of dual substantive private rights system and doctrine of distinction between obligation and responsibility.

关 键 词：请求权 债权 诉 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]