论文部分内容阅读
《民法通则》第134条规定了十种民事责任承担方式,其中第二种责任承担方式为排除妨碍,而在《物权法》第三章“物权的保护”中规定了排除妨害请求权。这就可能导致作为下位法的《物权法》与作为民事基本法的《民法通则》之间无法形成权利责任相对应。同时在《侵权责任法》、《道路交通安全法》、《农村土地承包法》等民事一般法以及部分行政法规、部门规章中对“排除妨害”与“排除妨碍”的使用也不尽统一,因此有必要界定“排除妨害”与“排除妨碍”的含义及两者的关系,从而消除由于立法用语的不同而可能带来的冲突。
Article 134 of the “General Principles of Civil Law” stipulates ten ways of bearing civil liability, of which the second responsibility is assumed to be an obstacle and the right to exclude is defined in Chapter III of the “Real Right Protection” . This may lead to the subordinate law “property law” as the civil basic law “civil law” can not form a corresponding responsibility between the rights. At the same time, the use of “exclusion of obstruction” and “exclusion of obstruction” in “Tort Liability Law”, “Road Traffic Safety Law” and “Rural Land Contract Law” and other civil common law as well as some administrative regulations and departmental rules Therefore, it is necessary to define the meaning of “exclude nuisance” and “exclusion” and the relationship between the two so as to eliminate the conflicts that may arise due to different legislative terms.