On The Capacity For Rights Of Legal Person

This paper, elaborating the essence and the range of the capacity for rights of legal person on the basis of researching on the capacity for rights, is consisted of 4 chapters.Chapter 1, expounding the common theories of the capacity for rights of legal person, is consisted of 3 sections. The first section sets forth the concept of the capacity for rights. The concept of the capacity for rights can trace back to the Roman law in the history view. A person in biology was called "homo", and A person with the competency of main body was called "caput" in the Roman law. The "homo" was the "persona" in the meaning of law only when the "homo" had a status of "caput". A person can become a "caput" only when he was a freedman, a father, and a citizen of Rome at the same time. In other words, a person was a formal member of roman community only when he has a competence in civil beadroll. The Germany Civil Code, promulgated in 1900, founded the system of legal person. The Code had, on the basis of assimilating and using the system of personality in Roman law and the doctrine of personality in France law for reference, founded the word of the capacity for rights for the first time. This had established a theory foundation for existing and developing of this social organization (i.e. legal person), not only endowing the personality with the natural person but also the legal person. There were five doctrines in the academia since the naissance of the concept of the capacity for rights. They were the doctrine of the right of personality, the doctrine of personality, the doctrine of abstract competency, the doctrine of competency, and the doctrine of the nature of the public law. The author thinks the capacity for rights is a competence to enjoy the rights and to undertake the obligations, not a qualification or competency. The second section discusses the values of the capacity for rights. The capacity for rights has two values including history value, which lies in to settle the matters of equity of the main body, and realistic value, which lies in to safeguard the civil rights through affirming the competency of the civil body. The third section expounds the relationships between the capacity for rights and the civil rights. The civil rights is a concept related, co-existed with capacity for rights each other and with some differences.Chapter 2 discussed the essence of the capacity for rights of legal person, which was composed of two sections. The first section illuminated the conception of the capacity for rights of legal person. The scholar in china mainland generally believed that the capacity for rights of natural person was equality but the legal person not. The question was the original right system was designed for natural person, and the foundation between the personality of body and the personality of natural person is not same. Therefore, the personality of natural person was differ from the personality of body affirmatively. The author thought it was a realistic fact that the capacity for rights of civil body was equality in the meaning of the civil law ranges. The second section discusses the capacity for rights of legal person. There were three doctrines in the essence of the rights of legal person, including the treatment, the negativism, and the realism. The argument, concerning the doctrine of the treatment, was that only the natural person was the main body of the rights and obligations. The law treated the legal person as a natural person only for the need to ascertain the adscription of the body interests. The negativism thought any social organization was only an aggregation consisted of much more individual, and they did not admit all kinds of doctrines concerning existence of legal person. The negativism doctrine also divided three arguments. The first argument was no main body, which thought the essential of legal person was a property without main body existing for some aim. This denied the existence of the legal person at all. The second argument was beneficiary, which thought the right was the interests under the safeguard of the law. He, who held the interests, was the main body. The final intention to carry out the system of legal person was for the interests of natural person. Therefore, the property of legal person attached to the individual enjoyed the interests due to the legal person. The third argument was the manager, which thought the main body of property was the person who can possess, use and dispose practically. In other words, the person who managed practically the property of legal person was the reality of the legal person. The realism thought the legal person was a social actuality, not treated and not meaning and interests of body. And the legal person was per se an objective and independent main body. The realism was divided three arguments, including the organism, the organization and the social function. The organism thought the legal person has the meaning of the body but the individual, and has social life but individual life, and also is a social organism but the natural organism. The organization thought the legal person is an organization differed from the individual will and interests of its member. The social function thought the legal person can undertake social value independently, and possess of social value of capacity for rights.Chapter 3 is on the legal person's capacity for right and group's personality. Section 1 paraphrases the group. Section 2 is on the classification of the legal person. Section 3 is on the relationship between the legal person's capacity and group's personality.Chapter 4 is on the scope of the legal person's capacity for right which is the key point of the thesis. Section 1 is on the content of the legal person's right. Legal person has property right and personality right. Generally speaking, legal person's property right comprises (a) right of thing (b) right of obligation (c) intellectual property right (d) economical legal interest. Legal person's personality right comprises the right of title, honor and credit, etc. Legal person can't claim some right connected with life, such as right of life and health and image, etc. Section 2 is on the limit of the legal person's capacity which can be seen from two points: one is property right, the other is personality right. For example, legal person cannot claim the right of being supported. Section 3 is on the legal restrain on the legal person's capacity from three points. Firstly, the new Company Law limits the legal person's transit investment. Secondly, the legal person's warrant right is limited. Section 4 is on the goal of the legal person's capacity. Section 5 analyses the scope of the legal persons' capacity. Due to the character of legal person which is different with natural person, legal person's capacity has been limited transversely. On the other hand, different statutes make different provision on the legal person's capacity which limits the legal person's capacity longitudinally. The restrain is not disturbing the legal person but protecting the economical order. The thesis argues that when the legal person oversteps its business scope, it should be given chance to correct it, that is, through revising its constitution to make its behavior valid. This kind of limit is dynamic.