埋藏物论文：埋藏物发现人权利研究

埋藏物论文：埋藏物发现人权利研究

【中文摘要】埋藏物发现制度可追溯至罗马法早期,当时由于财产的不流通和社会一般观念的限制,采取的是埋藏物所有权归属土地所有人的制度。延及哈德里亚努斯帝时代,伴随着土地买卖日益增多和渐生转变的社会观念,权力机关赋予了发现人有限取得埋藏物的权利。后因其进步性,法、德、意等诸国也逐渐继受了此种立法宗旨。相形之下,我国对被发现的埋藏物采用国家取得所有权主义,致使作为民事主体的埋藏物发现人的权利无法得到有效保护,同时也使得物的价值无法被最大化利用。本文以能被证明其权属之物、所有人不明之物和具有文化价值之物三种常见的埋藏物为研究对象,以经济学角度和人性角度为切入点,以博弈论的方法进行对比分析,论证有限取得制度对物利用率最大化的实现及对人性物之合理欲望的满足。同时,本文也通过对国内外立法的考察,对完善我国立法提出了具体的制度设计,希望对埋藏物发现制度的完善有所裨益。以保证从最大程度上维护发现人民事权利,实现民法对民事主体保护之,最终主张确立埋藏物发现人的有限取得所有权应当是未来民法典的一种必然价值选择。本文基本框架分为如下四个部分:第一部分为问题的提出,本部分首先介绍了一些与埋藏物有关的司法案例,并提出在国内司法过程中发现人权利维护存在的问题。同时,通过对比分析,论证发现人有限取得埋藏物所有权制度的科学性和合理性。第二部分为法国、德国、日本、瑞士、我国台湾及古代唐律中有埋藏物发现制度的立法,同时也

对法条进行了对比分析,说明了它们的异同点,从而找出现在各国对埋藏物发现立法的大致趋势。在本部分的末端找出了我国所有权取得主义立法的渊源,并将国内立法与苏联立法做对比,说明我国立法的极端不合理。第三部分为现行立法缺陷的细致解剖。我国埋藏物发现制度的制定不仅在立法主义模式上与他国存在严重的分歧,同时有关规范埋藏物制度的法条本身即不完整又不合理。本部分以具体的法律规范为引子,然后即论述规范在价值取向选择方面对发现人权利的严重侵害,同时指出法规本身的不足,并说明由此引发的弊端。第四部分为构建我国有关埋藏物发现制度法律制定之思考。本部分首先论证了借鉴国内外法律,设立发现人有限取得埋藏物所有权制度的必要性及可行性。最后,笔者结合各国规定及国内学者的立法思考提出了构建埋藏物发现制度的具体构想,就埋藏物的概念、发现的法律构成要件及法律后果提出了立法建议。

【英文摘要】The regime of buried-object discovery dates back to the early era of Roman law. The ownership of the buried object was attributed to the land owner thanks to the contemporary non-circulation of property and the bondage of the common societal attitude. In the times of Empire Hadrianus, the authorities granted the discoverer limited rights to acquire the ownership of the buried object along with the background of increasing trades of land property and the shifting social attitude. Afterwards, France, Germany, Italy and other states

gradually accepted this legislative notion due to its progressive qualities. By contrast, China adopts the state-owning way with respect of the discovered buried-object, which makes that the rights of the discoverer as a civil subject cannot be protected and the values of the object cannot be maximally utilized. This paper studies the maximal utilization of the object under the regime of limited ownership acquirement and the satisfaction of the proper human desire. Meanwhile, this article examines the legislations of China and other countries and proposes detailed design for the purpose of improving the regime of buried-object discovery, maximally protecting the civil rights of the discoverers and realizing the aim of civil-subject protection. This paper finally establishes the inevitable value-orientation of the future Civil Code that the discoverer ought to have limited rights to acquire the ownership of the buried object.The first part raises the question. This part introduce some cases with relevant to buried-object and emphasize the defect of domestic legal procedure in protection of the discoverer’s right. Meanwhile, according to the contrast and analysis, the writer argues for the scientific and reasonable of the regime that the discoverer ought to acquire the ownership of the buried-object

finitely.The second part introduces the legislation with relevant to the regime of buried-object discovery in France, German, Switzerland, Taiwan province of China and law of Tang. Besides, having contrasted the laws and explained their identical and difference, the writer finds the legislation trend of the regime of buried-object discovery. At the end of this part, the writer finds the origin of ours regime and contrasted the difference in legislation between China and Soviet Union, finally the writer concludes that China’s legislation is extremely unreasonable. The third part is the careful analysis of domestic legislation’s defect. Our country’s regime of buried-object discovery is acutely different with other countries, meanwhile the laws for regularizing the regime of buried-object discovery is fragmented and unreasonable. With reference to the exact legal norms, the writer discusses the current norms’infringement of right in value orientation, points out the defect of the current regulation and explains the abuse result from it.The fourth part is the consideration of how to construct the regime of buried-object discovery in law. Firstly, the writer discusses the necessity and feasibility of establishing the regime that the discoverer ought to acquire the ownership of the

buried-object limitedly in light of international legislation. At the end, the writer puts forward the specific scheme for establishment of the regime of buried-object discovery combined with international legislation and legislation idea of domestic scholar, besides, the writer puts forward the legislation suggested with relevant to the concept of buried-object, the constitution of discovery and the legal consequence. 【备注】

索购全文加在线好友139938848

.

同时提供论文写作指导和论文发表委托服务

【关键词】埋藏物 发现人权利 法律缺陷 立法建议

【英文关键词】Buried-object Right of discoverer Legal defect Legislation suggested

【目录】埋藏物发现人权利研究6-813-18

ABSTRACT8-9

摘要

一、问题的提出

1. 埋藏物为

引言12-13

13-15

（一） 发现埋藏物案例介绍

能证明其权属的主体所有1313-14出问题15

2. 所有人不明的埋藏物

（二） 提

1.

3. 埋藏物为具有文化价值之物14-15

（三） 以博弈论的方法进行对比分析15-18

对于所有人不明的埋藏物16-1717-18

2. 对象是具有文化价值之物

（一） 罗

二、国外及台湾地区立法概况18-21

马法1819-2020-2121-2421-2222-2323-24

（二） 法国法与日本法18-19（四） 瑞士法20

（三） 德国法

（五） 我国台湾民法典

三、我国现行法律对发现人权利维护的缺陷（一） 我国现行法律有关埋藏物发现制度的规定（二） 我国现行法律有关埋藏物的价值取向（三） 由价值取向而引发的制度缺失及导致的弊端四、如何最大限度维护发现人权利24-30

（一）

借鉴西方法律设立有限取得制度的必要性24-25物有限取得制度在中国实施的可行性度设计26-30现的法律构成要件会发展的法律后果31-32

25-26

（二） 埋藏（三） 具体的制

2. 明晰发

1. 界定埋藏物的概念26-2727-2828-30

3. 借鉴国外及历史经验制定适合社结语30-31

致谢

参考文献32-33

马法1819-2020-2121-2421-2222-2323-24

（二） 法国法与日本法18-19（四） 瑞士法20

（三） 德国法

（五） 我国台湾民法典

三、我国现行法律对发现人权利维护的缺陷（一） 我国现行法律有关埋藏物发现制度的规定（二） 我国现行法律有关埋藏物的价值取向（三） 由价值取向而引发的制度缺失及导致的弊端四、如何最大限度维护发现人权利24-30

（一）

借鉴西方法律设立有限取得制度的必要性24-25物有限取得制度在中国实施的可行性度设计26-30现的法律构成要件会发展的法律后果31-32

25-26

（二） 埋藏（三） 具体的制

2. 明晰发

1. 界定埋藏物的概念26-2727-2828-30

3. 借鉴国外及历史经验制定适合社结语30-31

致谢

参考文献32-33

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/bm7p.html