中美票据权利人类型划分规则差异化研究  

Studying the Rule Difference of Type Classification of Bill Right Holder between the U.S. and China

作　　者：李兵巍[1] 

机构地区：[1]黑龙江大学法学院,哈尔滨150080

出　　处：《学术交流》2015年第2期75-80,共6页Academic Exchange

摘　　要：1996年1月1日开始施行的《中华人民共和国票据法》自颁布之日起就因存在诸多弊端饱受票据法学界的批判。在众多的修改意见中,如何修改并完善票据权利人制度少人问津,这与该制度在整个票据法体系中的重要法律地位并不相适应。在票据权利人制度体系中,票据权利人类型划分规则是其不可或缺的一项重要组成部分。相比较而言,中美票据法在票据权利人类型划分规则方面存在体系构建、具体范畴等方面的区别,这同两国票据立法发展进程、立法技术和票据权利类型规则的差异有密切联系。中国要建立与国际接轨的、能有效推动社会经济全面发展的、先进的票据法律制度就应当改变传统法律观念,摆脱陈旧的法律思维的束缚,向英美票据法的典范——美国的票据法律制度学习;要完善票据权利人类型划分规则就要先行修改现今的票据权利类型规则。在此基础上,应当明确票据权利人包括三个类型:完全票据权利人、占有票据但是不享有票据内容权利的人和丧失票据的占有但是根据票据法享有票据权利的人。Negotiable Instrument Law of the PRC issued on Jan. 1 st, 1996 has been criticized by the field of law for its various weaknesses since the date of its promulgation. Among numerous amendments, how to modify and perfect the articles of bill right holders is few mentioned, and it does not gear to its vital status in the whole negotiable instrument law. The classification of bill right holder type remains a major part in the system. Comparatively speaking, the U. S. and China have some differences of system building, categories in the clas- sification of bill holders, and the situation is closely connected with their differential legislation process, tech- nique and bill right type rule. China should get rid of old restrictions in laws and study the bill laws of the U. S. , building an advanced law system that gears into international regulations and propelling the progress of whole society, so modifying current bill right type rules is prior to the classification rule of bill right holder. On such bases, three types of holders should be clarified, full holder, holder without quiet possession and full- right holder without bill.

关 键 词：中美票据 票据权利人 丧失票据的占有 

分 类 号：D923.99[政治法律—民商法学]