•  
  •  
 

Doktrin Penyalahgunaan Hak (abus des droit)

Abstract

The present article examines the emergence of the doctrine of abus de droit in France in the mid-twentieth century through an analysis of key judicial decisions and the debates that followed them. The study commences with an exposition of the manner in which the evolution of capitalism, concomitant with the escalating economic disparity and the propagation of societal challenges, has influenced the judicial approach to the abstract Roman-law tradition of absolute rights. In light of this, the article contends that the civil-law tradition exhibited a fundamental flaw in its conceptualisation of rights as absolute, thereby overlooking objections that were firmly rooted in considerations of social purpose and the social function of rights. The doctrine of abus de droit was developed to address situations in which a right-holder exercises an otherwise lawful right with malicious intent, or in a manner that causes unjustified harm to others. However, the doctrine remains contested. The question of whether the exercise of a right can constitute an abuse has been met with a divided response amongst jurists. On the one hand, there are those who reject the notion outright, while on the other hand, there are those who contend that the law of unlawful acts (responsabilité délictuelle), even when broadly interpreted, is insufficient to establish liability for abusive conduct. These disagreements ultimately gave rise to two competing views of the doctrine's legal foundation: one treats abus de droit as an extension of the concept of unlawful acts, while the other considers it a distinct doctrine that should be explicitly formulated in the civil code

Bahasa Abstract

Artikel ini berusaha untuk menyelidiki kemunculan doktrin abus des droit di Prancis pada pertengahan abad ke-20 dengan mengkaji putusan pengadilan dan debat akademik yang mengikutinya. Artikel ini diawali dengan perkembangan gagasan hukum yang mulai memberikan perhatian pada ketimpangan ekonomi dan masalah sosial yang terjadi karena perkembangan kapitalisme.  Perkembangan sosial-ekonomi dan pergeseran keilmuan hukum dari model abstrak hukum romawi ke arah tujuan sosial telah mempengaruhi cara pandang hakim dan para sarjana hukum. Perkembangan dan pergeseran ini berpengaruh tidak hanya pada cara berpikir sarjana hukum, tetapi juga doktrin hukum. Artikel ini menunjukkan bahwa tradisi civil law memiliki kelemahan struktural ketika merumuskan dominium absolute, karena konsepsi itu cenderung mengabaikan fungsi sosial dari hak. Doktrin abus de droit kemudian berkembang untuk menjawab situasi ketika pemegang hak menjalankan hak yang secara formal sah, tetapi dilakukan dengan itikad buruk atau dengan cara yang menimbulkan kerugian yang tidak dapat dibenarkan bagi pihak lain. Namun, doktrin ini tetap diperdebatkan. Sebagian sarjana menolak kemungkinan bahwa pelaksanaan hak dapat sekaligus merupakan penyalahgunaan, sementara yang lain berpendapat bahwa doktrin perbuatan melawan hukum, meskipun ditafsirkan secara luas, masih tidak memadai untuk membebankan tanggung jawab atas tindakan yang bersifat abusif. Kontroversi mengenai dasar hukum abus de droit pada akhirnya melahirkan dua pandangan: pertama, yang melihatnya sebagai perluasan doktrin perbuatan melawan hukum; kedua, yang menilainya sebagai doktrin mandiri yang semestinya dirumuskan secara eksplisit dalam kodifikasi.

References

Allan C. Hutchinson. “Les Misérables Redux: Law and the Poor.” Dalam Law, Life, and Lore, 173–84. Cambridge University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108363242.012.

“Article 544 - Code civil - Légifrance.” Diakses 11 Oktober 2025. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006428859/1804-03-21.

“Article 1382 - Code civil - Légifrance.” Diakses 8 Oktober 2025. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006438819/1804-03-21.

Berkowitz, Roger. The Gift of Science. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005.

Birks, Peter. “The Roman Law Concept of Dominium and the Idea of Absolute Ownership.” Acta Juridica 1 (1985): 1–38.

Blaufarb, Rafe. The Great Demarcation: The French Revolution and the Invention of Modern Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Bonger, William Adrian. Criminality and economic conditions. United Kingdom: William Heinemann, 1916.

Buckland, W. W., dan Arnold Duncan McNair. Roman Law and Common Law: A Comparison in Outline. Repr. [2nd ed. rev. by F. H. Lawson]. Cambridge: Univ.Press, 1974.

Capitant, Henri. “Les Transformations du Droit Civil Francais Depuis Cinquante ans.” Dalam Livre du Cinquantenaire de la Société de Législation Comparée, 1:31–80. Paris: Libr. générale de droit et de jurisprudenc, 1922. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k23704d.texteImage#.

Cornil, Georges. Le Droit Privé : Essai De Sociologie Juridique Simplifiée. Paris: Marcel Giard, 1924. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6255571d/f5.texteImage#.

Cour de Cassation, Chambre des requêtes, du 3 août 1915, 00-02.378, Inédit. Diakses 11 Oktober 2025. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000007070363?dateDecision=03%2F08%2F1915&init=true&page=1&query=&searchField=ALL&tab_selection=juri.

Cueto-Rua, Julio. “Abuse of Rights.” Louisiana Law Review 35, no. 5 (September 1975). https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol35/iss5/3.

Dalloz, Désiré. Jurisprudence générale du royaume en matière civile, commerciale et criminelle. Paris: Bureau de la Jurisprudence générale, 1856. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1263448f?rk=21459;2.

“Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia dan Warga Negara 1789 - Légifrance.” Diakses 15 Oktober 2025. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/contenu/menu/droit-national-en-vigueur/constitution/declaration-des-droits-de-l-homme-et-du-citoyen-de-1789.

Demogue, René. Traité des Obligations en Général. 4. Paris: LIBRAIRIE ARTHUR ROUSSEAU, 1924. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6473203z?rk=85837;2#.

Desserteaux, M. Marc. “Abus de Droit ou Conflit de Droits.” Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 8 (1906): 119–39.

Di Robilant, Anna. The Making of Modern Property: Reinventing Roman Law in Europe and its Peripheries 1789–1950. 1 ed. Cambridge University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859844.

“Digesta Iustiniani : Liber 39 ( Mommsen & Krueger ).” Diakses 7 Oktober 2025. https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Corpus/d-39.htm#3.

Duguit, Léon. “La Propriete Fonction Sociale: A Translation.” Dalam Léon Duguit and the Social Obligation Norm of Property, disunting oleh Paul Babie dan Jessica Viven-Wilksch, diterjemahkan oleh Jessica Viven-Wilksch, 35–61. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7189-9_2.

Ellen Meiksins Wood. Liberty and Property. London: Verso, 2012.

“German Civil Code BGB.” Diakses 1 Juni 2022. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p3571.

Gierke, Otto von. “Otto von Gierke: The Social Role of Private Law.” Diterjemahkan oleh Ewan McGaughey. German Law Journal 19, no. 4 (Juli 2018): 1017–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S207183220002294X.

Griolet, Gaston, Charles Vergé, dan Félix Tournier. Dalloz Jurisprudence Générale. Paris: Librairie Dalloz, 1913. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6578996t.

Guinchard, S., dan T. Debard. Lexique des termes juridiques 2017-2018. Lexiques. Paris: Dalloz, 2017.

Gutteridge, H. C. “Abuse of Right.” The Cambridge Law Journal 5, no. 1 (1933): 22–45.

Helmich, Werner Bernard. “De Theorie van Het Rechtsmisbruik in Het Romeinsche, Franche en Nederlandsche Recht.” Doctor in de Rechtsgeleerdheid, Nijmegen University, 1945. Delpher. https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB18C:058979000:00001.

Jhering, Rudolf von. Law as a Means to an End. Diterjemahkan oleh Isaac Husik. Boston: The Boston Book Compnay, 1913.

Josserand, Louis. De l’Abus des droits. Paris: Arthur Rousseau, 1905. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3040080q.texteImage#.

———. De l’Esprit des Droits et de Leur Relativité : Théorie Dite de l’Abus des Droits. Paris: Librairie Dalloz, 1939. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3413740p.image#.

Karl Renner. The Institutions of Private Law and Their Social Functions. Disunting oleh A. Javier Trevino. Routledge, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315132693.

Katz, Larissa. “Spite and Extortion: A Jurisdictional Principle of Abuse of Property Right.” The Yale Law Journal 122, no. 6 (2013): 1444–82.

Markovitch, Milivoïé. “La Théorie de L’Abus des Droits en Droit Comparé.” Doctorat en Droit, L’Universite de Lyon, 1936. https://doi.org/https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9811653j.texteImage#.

Marx, Karl. Kapital, Sebuah Kritik Ekonomi Politik. Buku I, diterjemahkan oleh Oey Hay Djoen. Jakarta: Hasta Mitra, 2004.

Nicholas, Barry. An Introduction to Roman Law. Disunting oleh Ernest Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Owen, Robert. A New View of Society and Other Writings. Disunting oleh Gregory Claeys. London: Penguin, 2007.

Planiol, Marcel. Traite Elementaire de Droit Civil. Septieme Edition. II. Paris: Pichon, 1917. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k11599814.texteImage#.

Ripert, Georges. “Abus ou Relativite des Droits.” Revue Critique de Legislation et de Jurisprudence 9 (1929): 33–64.

Robilant, Anna di. “Abuse of Rights: The Continental Drug and the Common Law.” Hastings Law Journal 687, no. 61 (2010).

Saleilles, Raymond. Essai d’une théorie générale de l’obligation : d’après le projet de Code civil allemand. Paris: Librairie Cotillon, 1890. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5455119b.texteImage#.

———. “Rapports Et Comptes-Rendus Des Séances, Travaux Relatifs Aux Questions Étudiées Par La Société.” Bulletin de la Société d’études législatives, 1905.

Trubek, David M. “Max Weber on Law and the Rise of Capitalism.” Dalam The Sociology of Law, 39:220–32. no. 1971. Routledge, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315135069-17.

Weber, Max. General Economic History. New York: The Free Press, 1950.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS