On the Historical Evolution of the Institution of Retention：A Comparative Study of Roman Law，Italian Law and Chinese
- 2013年 
【中文摘要】中国2007年颁布的《物权法》将留置权置于第四编“担保物权”之下，继“抵押权”、 “质权”之后设专章加以规定。留置权在罗马法中虽经历了从程序性制度到实体法制度的发展，但始终未曾被赋予对债的“物的担保”的性质。《意大利民法典》采用优先权性质的留置权制度，中国《物权法》采用的则是担保物权性质的留置权制度。前者产生于交易快捷性和安全性的需要，威慑相对人履行义务，其通过司法程序执行仅是偶然;后者具有迟延抗辩和物的担保的双重功能，在不履行时允许权利人从留置物获得满足。但《物权法》把债务人迟延设为行使留置权的条件，其有关条文在执行主体和债权人延迟“接受”的效果上令人疑惑，进而使留置权失去了其应有的威慑功能。可行的解决办法是取消留置权的担保物权性质，重构该制度内部的有机性。 【Abstract】The Property Right Law of PRC(2007) has one chapter on the right of retention in Chapter XVIII under Section IV, following the chapters relatively specialized in Mortgage Rights and Pledge Rights. The right of retention in Roman law witnessed a development from an institute of procedural law to substantive law , but had never been endowed the property of “real warranty”for the debts. The Italian Civil Code adopts the right of retention with the priority nature while for the Chinese Property Right Law it has the nature of a real right for security. The former one arises from the needs for fast and secure transactions. It deters the obligee to pay his debts, and the implementation through judicial process occurs only in accidental cases. The latter has the dual function of dilatory exeption and real warranty, which allows the entitled to be satisfied by implementation of the property which bears the right of retention. However, the Real Right Law grants the right of retention to the creditor under the condition of payment delay of the debtor but its relevant provisions on the effects of subjects and creditors) delay in “acceptance” are puzzling. It thereby paralyses the deterrence function of the right of retention that may be duly possessed. A possible solution to this problem might be to recovate its nature as a real right for security and to reconstruct tlie internal organization.