摘要
特殊债权的优先清偿在现代社会的法律中并不鲜见,一般将其视为为保障社会正义而打破平等原则的制度设计。然而,源于西方的平等原则在我国法律中的含义却并不清晰,西方国家将其作为宪法原则,而我国则将其作为民法原则。对平等理论的比较研究表明,由于先天的差异性及社会分工、个人努力等后天因素的影响,绝对的平等并不存在。通过比较分析,探讨了平等在民法和债法中的涵义,指出将特殊债权的优先清偿视作平等原则的例外的认识有失偏颇,认为正是平等的精神为特殊债权优先清偿的法律安排提供了最充分的依据。
In modern society, priority of the special credits in debt settlement is common for every state. In China,some scholars say that the priority for certain creditors has broken the principle of E- quality. However, Equality is regarded as a constitutional principle in western countries while it is written in Civil Law in China. So we have to make it clear what on earth the meaning of Equality is. In fact, there is no absolute equality, for difference in natural and unnatural conditions. With that, we can realize that Equality gives support to the provision of priority instead of a hindrance.
出处
《武汉理工大学学报（社会科学版）》
北大核心
2013年第3期451-455,共5页
Journal of Wuhan University of Technology:Social Sciences Edition
