On the Concept of Treasure
- 法学院－已发表论文 
来自西方的财宝概念与我国本土的埋藏物概念一度契合,所以,最初把财宝翻译为埋藏物是正确的。但随着实践的发展,财宝的概念在客体的范围上、在客体的存在空间上、在客体的古旧度上、在有无所有权前手上,都与埋藏物的概念不同。"财宝"的外延大于"埋藏物",所以,我国在未来制定民法典时,应放弃埋藏物的概念,改采财宝的概念。此外,财宝可分为严格财宝和非严格财宝,后者严格说来是遗忘物,我国立法区分了两者,但我国物权法理论尚未做到这一点,所以,我国学者并不认为严格财宝是无主物,由此发生了不必要地无限寻找藏宝者的继承人的错误判例,因此,要把财宝与遗忘物区分开来。进而应更新我国物权法理论中的财宝构成要件理论,增加"古旧"的要件,把20年作为古旧的标准。并建立准财宝的概念涵盖新的被发现物。The concept of treasure which is from the West was once fit the concept of thing buried in earth in ancient Chinese law, so it was reasonable that the first translator who has translated ＂treasure＂ into ＂thing buried in earth＂. But with the development of practice, the concept of treasure becomes greater than the extent of ＂thing buried in earth＂ in the range of objects, in the dimensions in which the object exists, in the antiquity of the object, in the possibility of whether the object has a first-hand owner. So in the future codification of our civil law, we should abandon the concept of ＂thing buried in earth＂, adopting the concept of treasure. Furthermore, treasure can be divided into proper and non-proper treasure. Strictly speaking, the latter is mislaid property. Our legislations have distinguished them, but our theory of property law still has not accepted that. As consequence, the academics do not think that proper treasure is thing without owner. This doctrine has caused some wrong decisions of courts which go all out to find unnecessarily and unlimitedly the heirs of a treasureholder. Therefore, we should separate treasure from mislaid property. Then we should update our theory about the requisites of treasure, adding ＂antiquity, ＂ as a requisite taking 20-year as the standard of antiquity. Lastly, we should establish a new concept of quasi-treasure for covering new kind of found objects.