On The Juristic Act Of Real Right & Abstract Principle Of Juristic Act Of Real Right

The theory of the juristic act of real right originates from Savigny, which means that the legal action that can induce real right fluctuation. The basic principles of the juristic act of real right include the methods of independence and abstractness. Currently, there are a lot of disputes on the theory field of our country whether approve the theory of the juristic act of real right or not, or whether legislation should adopt juristic act of real right and its independence and abstractness. Through the analysis of whether juristic act of real right exists, its independence and the theories of abstractness, the text inquires into that whether there is the necessity for our country legislation to take after the theory.This text divided five chapters to carry on comparing to study for the system to the theory of juristic act of real right, and the text added up to more than 25, 000 words. The writer in chapter 1 firstly introduces the origination of the juristic act of real right and the disputes concerned. Then the writer argues that the theory of the juristic act of real right is objectively existent, rather than artificially fabricate through the analysis of the most ancient trade forms, which consist the methods of mancipatio and in jure cession in ancient Rome. Finally, through the analysis of both positive and negative standpoints, the writer elaborates that there is the realistic meaning to acknowledge the theory of the juristic act of real right.After confirming the necessity of the juristic act of real right, in chapter 2, the writer explains the conception of the juristic act of real right on the basic of combination with the of legal action.Since the juristic act of real right has the characteristic of both legal action and parts of fact action, there exist great disputes on the legal attribute of the juristic act. The writer inquiries into the legal attribute of the juristic act of real right, through comparing the difference between the legal action and the fact action in chapter 3.Independence and abstractness of the juristic act of real right are key point of the juristic act of real right all the time, which is also the central point of this text. In chapter 4, the writer firstly introduces the meaning of independence and abstractness, and expatiates that the abstractness is the logical deduction result of the independence through analyzing the relationship between the independence and the abstractness of the juristic act of real right. However, the acknowledgment of the existence of the juristic act of real right cannot be equaled with the acknowledgement of the existence of independence of the juristic act or even coming to the conclusion that the theory of the abstractness of the juristic act, since whether there is the abstractness in the juristic act of real right should be ruled by the legislation. Further, the writer comes to the conclusion that the juristic act of real right should be the causative juristic act through analyzing both positive and negative sides of the abstract and the causation issues of the juristic act of real right. In chapter 5, the writer paid close attention to whether our country lawmaking led to make into concept and theories of the juristic act of real right or not. To show differences when compared the lawmaking modes of international community, the text made fine distinctions among the principle of credits meaning and the principle of public summons under the law and political models globally. The argument that our country totally admits the juristic act of real right, but there is not a distinction in handling practical matters the relation of the juristic act of real right and the juristic act of credits right physically, that result in confusion of system with the controversy of theories field.