成立未生效报批合同的解除机制研究

A Study on the Mechanism for Terminating Contracts That Have Been Approved but Have Not Yet Taken Effect

摘要: 《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉合同编通则若干问题的解释》第12条，赋予了须经批准方能生效的合同(下称“报批合同”)当事人在对方不履行报批义务时享有法定解除权。此项规定在法教义学层面引发了一场关于“成立未生效”合同，是否具备为被解除客体的适格性的核心争议。传统否定说认为，合同解除以合同生效并产生实质履行力为前提。与之相反，肯定说则主张，成立未生效合同已具备形式拘束力，理应可以成为合同被解除的对象。通过法律阐述与体系解释分析，本文认为，该司法解释规定并非对《中华人民共和国民法典》第563条一般法定解除权的简单重申，而是在其之外创设了一种针对特定情形的特殊法定解除权。其规范目的在于授权当事人消灭合同的形式拘束力，从而为破解因一方不履行报批义务所引致的合同僵局提供高效路径。因此，从维护交易安全与衡量效率价值出发，该解除权的设置具有充分的规范正当性与体系合理性。

Abstract: Article 12 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the General Provisions of the Contract Part of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China” grants parties to contracts that require approval to take effect (hereinafter referred to as “contracts subject to approval”) a statutory right of termination when the other party fails to fulfill its Approval Obligation. At the level of legal doctrine, this provision has sparked a core controversy regarding whether a contract that is “formed but not yet effective” possesses the legal standing to be the subject of termination. The traditional negative view holds that the termination of a contract presupposes that the contract has taken effect and possesses substantive enforceability. In contrast, the affirmative view argues that a contract that has been formed but has not yet taken effect already possesses formal binding force and should therefore be eligible to be the subject of termination. Through legal analysis and systematic interpretation, this paper argues that the provision in the judicial interpretation is not a mere reiteration of the general statutory right of termination under Article 563 of the “Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China”, but rather establishes a special statutory right of termination for specific circumstances. Its normative purpose is to empower the parties to extinguish the formal binding force of the contract, thereby providing an efficient pathway to resolve the contractual impasse caused by a Party’s failure to fulfill the approval obligation. Therefore, from the perspective of safeguarding transactional security and balancing efficiency, the establishment of this right of termination possesses full normative legitimacy and systemic rationality.