担保人之间追索权的公平与效率:比较与经济学分析

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Asia Pacific Law Review Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/10192557.2022.2033089
Jia-zhi He
{"title":"担保人之间追索权的公平与效率:比较与经济学分析","authors":"Jia-zhi He","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2033089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The right of recourse, or the right of contribution, between third-party security providers for the same debt absent any relevant agreement, is widely recognized in most common law and civil law jurisdictions. So was it in China. However, since the promulgation of the Chinese Civil Code 2020, the right of recourse seems to have been abandoned. Given the great divide between such abandonment and the practices in most other jurisdictions, this article explores the justification for the right of recourse, primarily from both the perspective of fairness and that of efficiency. Fairness concerns, particularly in the sense of distributive justice, are frequently referred to when justifying the right of recourse. But there are some drawbacks in a typical fairness analysis. Not only is the so-called ‘fairness’ often confused with other concerns, but also is such analysis inherently too vague to produce rules. Nevertheless, an efficiency analysis could justify the right of recourse and help develop the most efficient share calculation rule. The justification discussed in this article will benefit the relevant discussions in the property law of almost every jurisdiction and might also contribute to the debate on the relationship between fairness and efficiency.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"384 - 401"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The fairness and efficiency of the right of recourse between security providers: a comparative and economic analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jia-zhi He\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10192557.2022.2033089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The right of recourse, or the right of contribution, between third-party security providers for the same debt absent any relevant agreement, is widely recognized in most common law and civil law jurisdictions. So was it in China. However, since the promulgation of the Chinese Civil Code 2020, the right of recourse seems to have been abandoned. Given the great divide between such abandonment and the practices in most other jurisdictions, this article explores the justification for the right of recourse, primarily from both the perspective of fairness and that of efficiency. Fairness concerns, particularly in the sense of distributive justice, are frequently referred to when justifying the right of recourse. But there are some drawbacks in a typical fairness analysis. Not only is the so-called ‘fairness’ often confused with other concerns, but also is such analysis inherently too vague to produce rules. Nevertheless, an efficiency analysis could justify the right of recourse and help develop the most efficient share calculation rule. The justification discussed in this article will benefit the relevant discussions in the property law of almost every jurisdiction and might also contribute to the debate on the relationship between fairness and efficiency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Pacific Law Review\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"384 - 401\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Pacific Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2033089\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2033089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大多数英美法系和大陆法系司法管辖区,第三方担保提供者之间在没有任何相关协议的情况下就同一债务享有追索权或分摊权。在中国也是如此。然而,自2020年《中国民法典》颁布以来,追索权似乎被放弃了。鉴于这种放弃与大多数其他司法管辖区的做法存在巨大差异,本文主要从公平和效率两个角度探讨了追索权的正当性。在为追索权辩护时,经常提到公平问题,特别是在分配正义的意义上。但是,典型的公平性分析存在一些缺陷。所谓的“公平”不仅经常与其他问题混淆,而且这种分析本质上过于模糊,无法制定规则。然而,效率分析可以证明追索权的合理性,并有助于制定最有效的份额计算规则。本文所讨论的正当理由将有利于几乎所有司法管辖区物权法的相关讨论,也可能有助于对公平与效率关系的辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The fairness and efficiency of the right of recourse between security providers: a comparative and economic analysis
ABSTRACT The right of recourse, or the right of contribution, between third-party security providers for the same debt absent any relevant agreement, is widely recognized in most common law and civil law jurisdictions. So was it in China. However, since the promulgation of the Chinese Civil Code 2020, the right of recourse seems to have been abandoned. Given the great divide between such abandonment and the practices in most other jurisdictions, this article explores the justification for the right of recourse, primarily from both the perspective of fairness and that of efficiency. Fairness concerns, particularly in the sense of distributive justice, are frequently referred to when justifying the right of recourse. But there are some drawbacks in a typical fairness analysis. Not only is the so-called ‘fairness’ often confused with other concerns, but also is such analysis inherently too vague to produce rules. Nevertheless, an efficiency analysis could justify the right of recourse and help develop the most efficient share calculation rule. The justification discussed in this article will benefit the relevant discussions in the property law of almost every jurisdiction and might also contribute to the debate on the relationship between fairness and efficiency.
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Constitutional foundings in Northeast Asia Constitutional democracy in Indonesia Authoritarianism and legality Asia-Pacific trusts law Volume 1 theory and practice in context Varieties of authoritarian legality
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1