Contemporary Social Sciences (Mar 2019)
Justification and System Arrangement of Virtual Property Rights — Comments on Article No. 127 of General Provisions of the Civil Law
Abstract
In the process of formulating the General Provisions of the Civil Law of P. R. China, the attribute of virtual property rights has changed from real rights to non-real rights. Article No. 127 thereof does not clarify the nature of virtual property rights after all, and the place where virtual property is put in the "Civil Rights" chapter of General Provisions of the Civil Law makes the concept even more complex and confusing. The "relationships paradigm" protection of virtual property does not have a definite classification criterion, nor stands opposite to the "rights paradigm." There are two different ways to justify the "theory of virtual property as a real right" under the "rights paradigm" protection, namely, essentialism and consequentialism. The former resulted from utilizing features in a demonstration and identifying disposal rights with real rights, while the latter resulted from adherence to the dichotomy system of property rights comprising real rights and creditor’s rights. From the perspective of larceny in Criminal Law and virtual property insurance in The Social Insurance Law, the attribute of virtual property rights is irrelevant to creditor’s rights. The attribute of virtual property rights shall be defined as virtual property rights so that it can be included in the system of civil rights. The uniqueness of virtual property is enough to become an object of emerging civil rights; intangible property rights as a superordinate theoretical concept cannot reflect the essence of virtual property rights. The legislative frame of virtual property rights shall be comprised of the subject, object, exercise, publication and change of the rights.
Keywords
