24 5 2006 9 Tribune o f Po litica l Scie nce a nd Law (Jo u rna l o f C h ina U n ive rsity o f Po litica l Sc ie nce a nd Law ) Vol. 24, No. 5 Sep. 2006 (, 310028) :,,,,, : ; ; ; ; ; : ; ; ; : DF5 : A : 100020208 (2006) 052066215,, B,,,,,,,,, : 2006207201 : (1971 ),,,, 20 90 (, 1995 ) ( 1995 2 ),,, ( : 6,, 1996 ),, 2002 2,,,, ( 1998 3 ) ( 1999 10 ) ( ( ) 2003 4 ),,, ( 2002 1 ),
5 : 67 ( ),,,,, : (1),,,,,,,, ( ),, ( : ) [ 1 ],, (2),,,, ;,,, [ 2 ] ( P1 2),,, (3),, [ 1 ] ( P1 1),,, [ 3 ] ( P1364),,,,, [ 4 ] ( P1135),,,,,,, [ 5 ] ( P1175),, [ 6 ],, 20 60, [ 7 ] ( P1368-393) 20 90,,,,,, A B,,,, [ 8 ] ( P1316),,,,,,,,,,,, 2004 5 18, [ 2004 ]96
68 2006 ( ),,,,, :,,,,,,,,,,,,, [ 9 ],,,,,??,, :,,,,,,,,,,,, :,,,,?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ( ) :,, ( ),,,,,, :,,,,, [ 10 ],,,,
5 : 69,,,,, ( ) ( ),, ( ) [ 11 ],,, ( ),,, [ 10 ],,,,,,,,,,,,, [ 10 ],, ( ) :,, [ 12 ] ( P161-63) : 1999 10, 8,,,,,,,,,,,,, :,, 30,?,,,,,,,,, :,, 2002 1,,,,,,, :, 2000 6 30, 1969, :, ( ),,,,,, 1972,,,,,?,,?, ;,, :, : ( ),,, 1997, 514 :, 2001 4
70 2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :,, :,, : (1),, (2),, (3),,,,,,,,,, [ 10 ],,,,?,,, [ 4 ] ( P1134),, : ( ) :,,,,,,,, :,,, :,,, :??,,,,
5 : 71,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ( ),,,,,,,,, ( TriererW einversteigerung) :,,,,,,,,,?,, : 118,,,, [ 13 ] ( P1454-455),,,, 118,, [ 13 ] ( P1455), : (1),,,, : [ ]? :,,, 2000 11, 453 454 ; [ ] : ( ),,, 2003 1, 481 ; :,, 2003 4, 114 ;, 118 : :,,, 1999 5
72 2006,,,,, :,,,,,, (2),,,,, (3),,,,,, (4),,,,?,,,,, [ 14 ] ( P1460),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ( ) ( ),, :,,, :,,,,,,,,, 1999 1671 :,,,,,,,,,,,,, :, 37, 38, :,, 2001 7, 409
5 : 73 : ( ),,,,,,,,,, [ 15 ] ( P1435-436),, [ 16 ] ( P1281-282),,,, :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :,,,,,, [ 17 ] ( P1354) ( ),,,,,,,,,,,
74 2006 :,,,,,,,, : 2004 5, 33 2,, 5 13,, :,, 5 21,,,, 5 26,,,,,,, 5,,,, ;,,,?,,,,,, ;,? : 1?,,,,,, 2,?,, :,,,,??,,? : :,, 2004 7 20, 2005 2 17,, ;, ;,,,,,,,,,,,, ;, :,,, 2004 6 10, 2005 2 17,, :,, ;,
5 : 75 :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :,, 3,?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ( ),,,,, [ 18 ] ( P14),,,,, [ 19 ] ( P150),, [ 20 ] ( P180) [ 21 ] ( P17) [ 22 ] ( P174),,,,,,,,,,, :,,,,, : :,, 2004 6 10, 2005 2 17 :,, 2004 6 10, 2005 2 17
76 2006 A B C D,, A, A B C D, A B C D,,,?, [ 23 ] ( P162), ( ) 80,,,,,,,,,,,,, [ 24 ] ( P112),,,, :, A B C D,, : ; A B C D,, A B C D, A B C D,,,, ( ),,,, (Open Texture) :,,,, [ 4 ] ( P1124-135),, ;, [ 25 ] ( P1335),,, 1999 8,,,,,,,,, : 2000 9 16,,
5 : 77, 12,,,, 30 2000 7,,,,, 40%, 60%,, 39 000,?,, 60%,,, 290 :,?,,, 302,,,,, ( ), :, :,,,,,? 301,,, 60 2,,,,,,,, ( ),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, [ 26 ] ( P1307),, 72, 251 : [ ] : ( ),,, 2003 1, 306
78 2006 226, 226 [ 26 ] ( P1306),,, :, [ 26 ] ( P1307),, 226,, [ 26 ] ( P1307),,,,,,, ( ),,,,,,, : 2000 5 11 1,,,,, 22 2002 6,,,,, 20, 178 233, 20 8 101. 5,,, 20,,,, : (1),?,,,,,,, :,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (2)? 126,,,,,, 226 : : :?,, 2002 9 24, : ; : 126 :,,
5 : 79,,, (3)?,,,,,,,,,,, :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, [ 16 ] ( P1281),,,,,,,, : : [ 27 ] ( P1 ),,,,,,,,,,,,, : [ 1 ] 1 : [ J ]1, 1997, (4) 1 [ 2 ] 1 [M ] 1 :, 19991 [ 3 ] [ ] 1 [M ] 1, 1 :, 19961 [ 4 ] [ ] 1 [M ] 1,,,, 1 :, 19961 [ 5 ] 1 [M ]1 :, 19991 [ 6 ] 1 [ J ]1, 1995, (2) 1 [ 7 ] 1 [A ] 1, 1 ( 6 ) [ C ]1 :, 19951 [ 8 ] 1 [M ]1 :, 19951 [ 9 ] 1 [ N ] 1, 2002-02 - 261 [ 10 ] 1 [ J ] 1, 2002, (4) 1 [ 11 ] [ ] 1 [A ] 1, 1, 1 ( 2 ) [ C ] 1 :, 19951 [ 12 ] [ Z]12002, (2) 1 [ 13 ] [ ] 1 [M ]1, 1 :, 20001 [ 14 ] [ ] 1 ( ) [M ]1,, 1 :, 20031 [ 15 ] 1 [M ] 1, 2002, ( ) 1
80 2006 [ 16 ] [ ] 1 [M ]1, 1 :, 19961 [ 17 ] [ ] C 1 [M ]1, 1 :, 20031 [ 18 ] [ ] 1 [M ] 1,, 1 :, 19951 [ 19 ] [ ] 1 [M ]1, 1 :, 20001 [ 20 ] 1 ( ) [M ] 1 :, 20011 [ 21 ], 1 [M ] 1 :, 19981 [ 22 ], 1 ( ) [M ] 1 :, 19981 [ 23 ] [ ] 1 [M ]1,, 1 :, 19941 [ 24 ] 1 [ Z ] 1, 20041 [ 25 ] [ ] 1 [M ] 1, 1 :, 19941 [ 26 ] [ ] 1 ( ) [M ]1,, 1 :, 20031 [ 27 ] [ ] 1 [M ] 1 :, 19991 Boundary L ine of Interests Balancing L IANG Shang - shang ( Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310028) Abstract: The Interest Balancing theory as a useful method to decide a difficult case m ay easily lead to arbitrariness. The arbitrariness can be divided into two types. One results from lacking to balance all the inter2 ests, while the other is caused by going beyond the boundary lines of the institution. The two have different natures and different solutions. In order to avoid making the second type of arbitrariness, the solution is to measure the interests in a p roperly selected institution. The boundary lines of app lying the theory include: the theory should not be app lied if a case is outside of the legal world; The interests balancing should be done in p roper legal institutions; and should be done in the same legal relations; Proper meanings exist in the legal system s; App rop riate legal norm s should be selected to be the basis of balance. In the cases that cannot get le2 gal rem edy, interests balancing should not be conducted. Key W ords: Interests B alancing; A rbitrariness; Institution; Boundary L ine ( )