 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
SUN Hongliang
Full-Text PDF
XML 30 Views
DOI:10.17265/1548-6605/2025.07.002
East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
A creditor’s right, when conceived as a relational right, is properly comparable to a real right conceived similarly. Conversely, a real right as a proprietary right is comparable to a creditor’s right viewed in the same light. Creditor’s rights as relationships and real rights as property rights do not belong to the same category and should not be compared. Hohfeld’s theory of rights analysis provides a tool for jurisprudence akin to analytic geometry. However, considering the cost of theoretical implementation, this theory cannot replace the historically accumulated typological structure of property rights divided into obligation and property. The relationship of real rights is primarily manifested as the right holder’s direct control over a tangible object, and secondarily as the legal relationship between individuals arising from such direct control. Based on the fundamental principle of autonomy of will in civil law, it is impermissible to bypass direct control over objects and reduce the relationship of real rights directly to that of creditor’s rights. Creditor’s rights as property rights also possess attributes of “control” and “exclusivity”. However, this “control” differs from the direct control over objects in real rights; rather, it refers to the creditor’s freedom to dispose of the right without interference from others. This “exclusivity” does not pertain to the internal relationship of the right but relates to the attribution of the right, falling under the external relationship of the right. Dichotomizing property rights based on exclusivity cannot replace the fundamental structure of property rights divided into obligation and property, as the latter holds unique morphological significance.
creditor’s right real right, Hohfeld, obligations in rem, right of control, civil law culture
SUN Hongliang.Major Misunderstandings and Theoretical Clarifications Regarding the Division Between Creditor’s Rights and Real Rights in the Civil Code Era—A Discussion With Professor Chang Yun-chien.US-China Law Review, July 2025, Vol. 22, No. 7, 329-334
Chang, Y.-C. (2023). The concept of creditor’s rights: Deconstruction and reconstruction. Peking University Law Journal, 35(1), 85-105.
Han, S. Y. (2022). Contract law. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Jin, K. K. (2005). The constituent elements of the doctrine differentiating creditor’s rights from real rights. Chinese Journal of Law, 52(1), 20-31.
Klunzinger. (2013). Einführung in das Bürgerliche Recht—Grundkurs für Studierende der Rechts—und Wirtschaftswissenschaften, 16. Aufl., München.
Meng, Q. G. (2020). A dual structure theory of real rights: A theoretical reconstruction of china’s real rights system. Beijing: Law Press.
Neuner. (2023). Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts, 13. Aufl., München.
Wang, L. M. (2022). General principles of civil law. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.
Wellenhofer. (2023). Sachenrecht, 38. Aufl., München.
Wilhelm. (2021). Sachenrecht, 7. Aufl., Berlin/Boston.
Sun, X. Z. (2018). General principles of Chinese property law. Beijing: Law Press.
Sun, X. Z. (2024). A study on implementing the principle of scientificalness in China’s real rights legislation: With reflections on a piece of legislative history. Tribune of Political Science and Law, 42(1), 3-34.