第 8 节
作者:寻找山吹      更新:2024-04-07 21:07      字数:9321
  juridical possession (possessio noumenon)。 It is founded upon the fact
  that; as all these acts are juridical; they consequently proceed
  from the practical reason; and therefore; in the question as to what
  is right; abstraction may be made of the empirical conditions
  involved; and the conclusion; 〃the external object is mine;〃 thus
  becomes a correct inference from the external fact of sensible
  possession to the internal right of rational possession。
  The original primary acquisition of an external object of the action
  of the will; is called occupancy。 It can only take place in
  reference to substances or corporeal things。 Now when this
  occupation of an external object does take place; the act presupposes;
  as a condition of such empirical possession; its priority in time
  before the act of any other who may also be willing to enter upon
  occupation of it。 Hence the legal maxim: 〃qui prior tempore; potior
  jure。〃 Such occupation as original or primary is; further; the
  effect only of a single or unilateral will; for were a bilateral or
  twofold will requisite for it; it would be derived from a contract
  of two or more persons with each other; and consequently it would be
  based upon what another or others had already made their own。 It is
  not easy to see how such an act of free…will as this would be could
  really form a foundation for every one having his own。 However; the
  first acquisition of a thing is on that account not quite exactly
  the same as the original acquisition of it。 For the acquisition of a
  public juridical state by union of the wills of all in a universal
  legislation would be such an original acquisition; seeing that no
  other of the kind could precede it; and yet it would be derived from
  the particular wills of all the individuals; and consequently become
  all…sided or omnilateral; for a properly primary acquisition can
  only proceed from an individual or unilateral or unilateral will。
  DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE EXTERNAL
  MINE AND THINE。
  I。 In respect of the matter of object of acquisition; I acquire
  either a corporeal thing (substance); or the performance of
  something by another (causality); or this other as a person in respect
  of his state; so far as I have a right to dispose of the same (in a
  relation of reciprocity with him)。
  II。 In respect of the form or mode of acquisition; it is either a
  real right (jus reale); or a personal right (jus personale); or a
  real…personal right (jus realiter personale); to the possession
  although not to the use; of another person as if he were a thing。
  III。 In respect of the ground of right or the title (titulus) of
  acquisition… which; properly; is not a particular member of the
  division of rights; but rather a constituent element of the mode of
  exercising them… anything external is acquired by a certain free
  exercise of will that is either unilateral; as the act of a single
  will (facto); or bilateral; as the act of two wills (pacto); or
  omnilateral; as the act of all the wills of a community together
  (lege)。
  SECTION I。 Principles of Real Right。
  11。 What is a Real Right?
  The usual definition of real right; or 〃right in a thing〃 (jus
  reale; jus in re); is that 〃it is a right as against every possessor
  of it。〃 This is a correct nominal definition。 But what is it that
  entitles me to claim an external object from any one who may appear as
  its possessor; and to compel him; per vindicationem; to put me
  again; in place of himself; into possession of it? Is this external
  juridical relation of my will a kind of immediate relation to an
  external thing? If so; whoever might think of his right as referring
  not immediately to persons but to things would have to represent it;
  although only in an obscure way; somewhat thus。 A right on one side
  has always a duty corresponding to it on the other; so that an
  external thing; although away from the hands of its first possessor;
  continues to be still connected with him by a continuing obligation;
  and thus it refuses to fall under the claim of any other possessor;
  because it is already bound to another。 In this way my right; viewed
  as a kind of good genius accompanying a thing and preserving it from
  all external attack; would refer an alien possessor always to me! It
  is; however; absurd to think of an obligation of persons towards
  things; and conversely; although it may be allowed in any particular
  case to represent the juridical relation by a sensible image of this
  kind; and to express it in this way。
  The real definition would run thus: 〃Right in a thing is a right
  to the private use of a thing; of which I am in possession… original
  or derivative… in common with all others。〃 For this is the one
  condition under which it is alone possible that I can exclude every
  others possessor from the private use of the thing (jus contra
  quemlibet hujus rei possessorem)。 For; except by presupposing such a
  common collective possession; it cannot be conceived how; when I am
  not in actual possession of a thing; I could be injured or wronged
  by others who are in possession of it and use it。 By an individual act
  of my own will I cannot oblige any other person to abstain from the
  use of a thing in respect of which he would otherwise be under no
  obligation; and; accordingly; such an obligation can only arise from
  the collective will of all united in a relation of common
  possession。 Otherwise; I would have to think of a right in a thing; as
  if the thing has an obligation towards me; and as if the right as
  against every possessor of it had to be derived from this obligation
  in the thing; which is an absurd way of representing the subject。
  Further; by the term real right (jus reale) is meant not only the
  right in a thing (jus in re); but also the constitutive principle of
  all the laws which relate to the real mine and thine。 It is;
  however; evident that a man entirely alone upon the earth could
  properly neither have nor acquire any external thing as his own;
  because; between him as a person and all external things as material
  objects; there could be no relations of obligation。 There is
  therefore; literally; no direct right in a thing; but only that
  right is to be properly called 〃real〃 which belongs to any one as
  constituted against a person; who is in common possession of things
  with all others in the civil state of society。
  12。 The First Acquisition of a Thing can only
  be that of the Soil。
  By the soil is understood all habitable Land。 In relation to
  everything that is moveable upon it; it is to be regarded as a
  substance; and the mode of the existence of the moveables is viewed as
  an inherence in it。 And just as; in the theoretical acceptance;
  accidents cannot exist apart from their substances; so; in the
  practical relation; moveables upon the soil cannot be regarded as
  belonging to any one unless he is supposed to have been previously
  in juridical possession of the soil; so that it is thus considered
  to be his。
  For; let it be supposed that the soil belongs to no one。 Then I
  would be entitled to remove every moveable thing found upon it from
  its place; even to total loss of it; in order to occupy that place;
  without infringing thereby on the freedom of any other; there being;
  by the hypothesis; no possessor of it at all。 But everything that
  can be destroyed; such as a tree; a house; and such like… as regards
  its matter at least… is moveable; and if we call a thing which
  cannot be moved without destruction of its form an immoveable; the
  mine and thine in it is not understood as applying to its substance;
  but to that which is adherent to it and which does not essentially
  constitute the thing itself。
  13。 Every Part of the Soil may be Originally Acquired; and
  the Principle of the Possibility of such Acquisition
  is the Original Community of the Soil Generally。
  The first clause of this proposition is founded upon the postulate
  of the practical reason (SS 2); the second is established by the
  following proof。
  All men are originally and before any juridical act of will in
  rightful possession of the soil; that is; they have a right to be
  wherever nature or chance has placed them without their will。
  Possession (possessio); which is to be distinguished from
  residential settlement (sedes) as a voluntary; acquired; and permanent
  possession; becomes common possession; on account of the connection
  with each other of all the places on the surface of the earth as a
  globe。 For; had the surface of the earth been an infinite plain; men
  could have been so dispersed upon it that they might not have come
  into any necessary communion with each other; and a state of social
  community would not have been a necessary consequence of their
  existence upon the earth。 Now that possession proper to all men upon
  the earth; which is prior