物权法定原则的经济分析模型及批判  

Economic Analysis Models of Numerus Clausus Principle and Criticism

作　　者：黄泷一[1] 

机构地区：[1]中山大学法学院,广东广州510275

出　　处：《广东财经大学学报》2017年第1期99-112,共14页Journal of Guangdong University of Finance & Economics

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(16YJC820004)

摘　　要：针对物权法定原则的经济分析模型主要有反公地悲剧理论模型、最优标准化理论模型、证明理论模型三种,其他的经济分析理论基本上都是对这三种模型的改良与批判。反公地悲剧理论模型本身虽然是正确的,但它并不能妥善地解释物权法定原则;最优标准化理论模型则存在较严重的瑕疵,因为物权类型的最优量实际上是不存在的,因此由这一理论延伸出来的改良论也是站不住脚的。真正能够妥善解释物权法定原则的只有证明理论模型,因为某一种权利是否应该被认定为物权,是否为之建立登记制度,必须对其进行"成本—效益"衡量,而不能交由当事人任意决定。对于具备外观表征的权利,放开物权自由创设,虽然可能造成不效率,但并不会太明显,因此在公示制度完善的情况下。At present,there are three kinds of economic analysis models of the numerus clausus principle,namely,the anticommons tragedy model,the optimal standardization model and the verification model.The other economic analysis theories are basically the improvement and critique of these three models. The anticommons tragedy model is correct in itself,but it can not explain the the numerus clausus principle properly. The optimal standardization model is invalid,because the optimal number of types of property rights does not exist,which makes other improvement theories of this model untenable. The only economic model that can interpret the numerus clausus principle is the verification model. Whether to recognize a right as a property right,and whether to establish registration system for it,must be decided by the ＂cost-benefit＂measurement and should not be decided arbitrarily by parties. As for the rights which have external appearance,the numerus apertus principle will lead to inefficiency,but the inefficiency is not obvious. Therefore,when there is a perfect publicity system,the numerus apertus will not bring obvious negative impact. However,the value of the numerus clausus principle is not limited to the aspect of economic efficiency,so the result coming for the economic analysis can not be considered as the final verdict of the fate of the numerus clausus principle.

关 键 词：物权法定 物权自由 反公地悲剧 最优标准化理论 证明理论 经济分析 成本-效益分析 

分 类 号：D923.2[政治法律—民商法学]