排他性与私法理论:《物权法》评析

Eric R. Claeys
{"title":"排他性与私法理论:《物权法》评析","authors":"Eric R. Claeys","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2005860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Comment responds to an article by Professor Henry Smith, “Property as the Law of Things,” forthcoming in a symposium sponsored by the Harvard Law Review on “The New Private Law Theory.” In his lead Article, Professor Smith critiques what he calls the “bundle” picture of property, which he attributes to Legal Realists. Using an economic theory of information costs, Smith concludes that the bundle picture does not explain as many basic features of property as a “thing” picture. I agree with Smith that the bundle picture suffers from many important problems, and I agree with his diagnoses of many of those problems. However, I prefer to study property not with economic analysis but with normative and analytical philosophy. Smith’s and my methodological differences may be of interest to the New Private Law Theory, which encourages close study of the criteria by which interdisciplinary theories of law purport to explain or justify private law. In that spirit, this Comment gives Smith’s information-cost economic analysis a hard look, relying on prior natural law and analytical legal positivist scholarship on the structure of the private law.","PeriodicalId":350363,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Real Estate Economics (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exclusion and Private Law Theory: A Comment on Property as the Law of Things\",\"authors\":\"Eric R. Claeys\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2005860\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Comment responds to an article by Professor Henry Smith, “Property as the Law of Things,” forthcoming in a symposium sponsored by the Harvard Law Review on “The New Private Law Theory.” In his lead Article, Professor Smith critiques what he calls the “bundle” picture of property, which he attributes to Legal Realists. Using an economic theory of information costs, Smith concludes that the bundle picture does not explain as many basic features of property as a “thing” picture. I agree with Smith that the bundle picture suffers from many important problems, and I agree with his diagnoses of many of those problems. However, I prefer to study property not with economic analysis but with normative and analytical philosophy. Smith’s and my methodological differences may be of interest to the New Private Law Theory, which encourages close study of the criteria by which interdisciplinary theories of law purport to explain or justify private law. In that spirit, this Comment gives Smith’s information-cost economic analysis a hard look, relying on prior natural law and analytical legal positivist scholarship on the structure of the private law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":350363,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Real Estate Economics (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Real Estate Economics (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2005860\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Real Estate Economics (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2005860","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

这篇评论回应了亨利·史密斯教授的一篇文章,“财产作为物的法律”,即将在哈佛法律评论主办的“新私法理论”研讨会上发表。在他的主要文章中,史密斯教授批评了他称之为“捆绑”的财产图景,他将其归因于法律现实主义者。利用信息成本的经济学理论,史密斯得出结论,捆绑图不能像“物”图那样解释财产的许多基本特征。我同意史密斯的观点,即捆绑销售模式存在许多重要问题,我也同意他对其中许多问题的诊断。然而,我更喜欢用规范和分析哲学而不是经济分析来研究财产。史密斯和我在方法论上的差异可能会引起《新私法理论》的兴趣,《新私法理论》鼓励对跨学科法律理论用来解释或证明私法的标准进行深入研究。本着这种精神,本评论对史密斯的信息成本经济分析进行了认真的审视,它依赖于先前的自然法和分析私法结构的法律实证主义学术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exclusion and Private Law Theory: A Comment on Property as the Law of Things
This Comment responds to an article by Professor Henry Smith, “Property as the Law of Things,” forthcoming in a symposium sponsored by the Harvard Law Review on “The New Private Law Theory.” In his lead Article, Professor Smith critiques what he calls the “bundle” picture of property, which he attributes to Legal Realists. Using an economic theory of information costs, Smith concludes that the bundle picture does not explain as many basic features of property as a “thing” picture. I agree with Smith that the bundle picture suffers from many important problems, and I agree with his diagnoses of many of those problems. However, I prefer to study property not with economic analysis but with normative and analytical philosophy. Smith’s and my methodological differences may be of interest to the New Private Law Theory, which encourages close study of the criteria by which interdisciplinary theories of law purport to explain or justify private law. In that spirit, this Comment gives Smith’s information-cost economic analysis a hard look, relying on prior natural law and analytical legal positivist scholarship on the structure of the private law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信