Abstract: The norms for pledge on negotiable instruments are stipulated in the Law on Negotiable Instruments and the Book of Real Rights in the Civil Code, which show the inherent unity of the normative system. The so-called institutional conflict is entirely caused by the system of interpretation constructed by scholars. Regarding the question of whether the pledge on negotiable instruments should be divided into the pledge in the law of negotiable instruments and the pledge in the law of real rights, most scholars who agree that the pledge in the law of real rights has its own value of legal application are scholars of the law of negotiable instruments, and those who do not agree are scholars of the law of real rights. This unusual academic phenomenon of different arguments by scholars from different disciplines shows that context setting and preunderstanding can seriously affect the interpretation process. Using the normative resources provided by the current laws to make precise demarcations of the legal effects of the pledge on negotiable instruments between the law of negotiable instruments and the law of real rights can not only effectively improve the application efficiency of the relevant statutes, but also better meet the institutional needs of the practice of pledge on negotiable instruments.

Keywords: Security Interest; Pledge on Negotiable Instruments; Rights of Pledge on Negotiable Instruments; Endorsement of Pledge; Rights on Negotiable Instruments

Author:Chen Su, a member of CASS and a research fellow at CASS Institute of Law.

Source: 5 (2022) Tribune of Political Science and Law