摘要
双重所有权是英美法信托制度中精巧的法律制度设计,但它与我国单一所有权理念格格不入。我国移植了信托制度,但没有妥善解决双重所有权的本土化问题,由此导致信托财产所有权归属模糊不清、受益权性质悬而未决、信托登记名存实亡。分析表明,是否采用双重所有权的形式并不重要,关键是本土化的制度设计能否实现同样的制度功能。在大陆法系的框架下,由受托人享有信托财产的单一所有权,同时受益人享有对受托人的债权请求权,这种设计既可以发挥信托制度的功能,又能够避免对我国传统物权制度造成巨大冲击,有助于实现信托制度的本土化。
Dual ownership, a sophisticated devise in the Anglo-American trust law regime, differs greatly from Chinese absolute ownership. While transplanting trust law, China ignored to localize dual ownership, leaving problems behind such as who should be held as the owner of the trusted property and how the nature of the beneficiary right be determined. And trust registration is indeed of no function. The observation proves that it is of key importance to ensure the Sinolized regime can perform the same function rather than merely assume the form of double ownership. Within the framework of continental law, the trustee is vested absolute ownership of the trust property while the beneficiary has the creditor＇ s claim against the trustee, which may not only exercise the function of trust but also prevent China＇ s traditional real right system from being attacked so as to conduce to realization of localization of trust institution.
出处
《现代法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2010年第3期159-168,共10页
Modern Law Science
基金
国家社会科学基金资助项目(05CFX011)
关键词
信托财产
双重所有权
单一所有权
法律移植
trust property
dual ownership
absolute ownership
transplantation of law
