当前民法学界对于债权人代位权理论体系争议颇多,尤其是对于代位权的客体范围和内容争论不休,根源在于没有以代位权的基本性质——能权性为出发点来理解整个制度设计。能权性与债的相对性相互捆绑,在此基础上的代位权并不是粗暴的消灭债权关系,而是作为一种能权以“入库规则”作为其基本属性的重要体现和保障而发挥债的保全作用。为充分发挥代位权的作用,在不突破其能权性的前提下,代位权客体内容可以扩展至物权、物上请求权、程序权利、公法权利等范围,而债券内容也应当涵盖非金钱给付之债,并对非金钱债与金钱债上代位权的成立区分对待。 At present, there are many controversies over the theoretical system of creditor subrogation in civil law and scholars circles, especially the controversy over the scope and content of subrogation of subrogation. The root cause lies in the fact that the entire system design is not based on the basic nature of subrogation as the empowerment. The relativity between empowerment and debt are mutually bound. Subrogation on this basis is not a crude elimination of debt, but an important manifestation and guarantee of its power as “basic rules” And play the role of debt preservation. In order to give full play to the role of subrogation right, without prejudice to its empowerment, the subrogation object content can be extended to the scope of property rights, material claims, procedural rights, public law rights, etc., and the bond content should also cover non-pecuniary Pay the debt, and non-monetary bonds and money bonds on behalf of the establishment of sub-treatment.