票据行为无因性作为票据法的基本原则，对促进票据流通，保护交易安全起着至关重要的作用。学术界对票据行为无因性的探讨并不深入，何谓票据行为无因性，票据行为无因性与相关概念的区别以及票据行为无因性的理论基础、法律价值及效力范围等问题尚需进一步厘清。我国票据立法对票据行为无因性的态度极为模糊，没有明确确立票据行为无因性原则，不仅使票据难以发挥作用，而且也给司法实践造成了不少混乱。依据不同的票据理论，票据行为无因性的内涵、效力范围等有所不同。票据行为二阶段说以其理论构成解释相关票据的各种问题更具有合理性，具有突出的优点，建立在二阶段创造说基础上的票据行为无因性的内涵更合理，对新的票据问题更具有解释力。有鉴于此，本书以票据行为无因性为题，从票据理论入手，以二阶段创造说为理论基点，阐释无因性的内涵，对票据无因性的效力进行梳理，并对“二重无权抗辩”及“后手抗辩”等新型票据问题作出前瞻式的研究。全书共分四章。第一章论述了票据行为无因性与票据行为二阶段说的关联。依据不同的票据理论，票据行为无因性的内涵、效力范围有所不同，所以票据行为无因性的研究要从票据学说中寻求其理论基点。本章首先对票据理论的各种学说进行分析，认为各种票据理论各有其优势和不足，但票据行为二阶段说以其理论构成解释相关票据的各种问题更具有合理性，既维护票据流通的安全，又解决众多相关票据问题，有利于理论的整合性，具有突出的优点。其次，分析了传统二阶段说的不足，通过实例论证在票据承兑和担保中也存在权利转移行为，主张彻底贯彻二阶段说。本章最后重点论述了票据无因性与票据理论的相互影响。以二阶段创造说为理论基点，票据无因性指的是债务负担行为的无因性，权利移转行为本身是有因行为。第二章论述了票据行为二阶段说之下的无因性内涵。票据关系与原因关系的关联是票据法律理论中一个重要的基本论点，存在着无因构成和有因构成两种相互对立的观点。建立在票据行为一元论基础上的票据行为无因性有多种用法，造成适用上的混乱。而采用票据行为二元构成学说，将票据行为区分为债务负担行为和权利移转行为，前者为无因行为，后者为有因行为，这对于理解票据的各种制度都有重要意义：票据行为独立原则是与债务负担行为存在瑕疵相关的问题；善意取得制度是与权利移转行为存在瑕疵相关的问题；抗辩限制涉及票据行为无瑕疵而票据外法律关系有欠缺的情况。票据债务负担行为的无因性，主要表现为票据债务负担行为不受票据以外法律行为的影响。票据债务负担行为具备无因性需符合形式要件和实质要件，票据签章人应具有票据权利能力和票据行为能力，且意思表示无瑕疵。本章重点以后手抗辩和二重无权抗辩为例，论证了票据权利转移行为有因论相较传统票据无因性理论下的权利滥用理论更具有说服力。第三章界定了票据行为二阶段说之下的无因性效力范围。票据行为无因性的效力在授受票据的直接当事人之间主要表现为举证责任倒置；在非直接当事人之间主要表现为人的抗辩限制制度。人的抗辩具有属人性和个别性，其理论基础为票据行为无因性。基于不同的无因性学说，人的抗辩范围有所不同。根据传统票据行为无因性，原因关系瑕疵的抗辩是人的抗辩，适用抗辩限制，这在后手抗辩和二重无权抗辩这些新型案例的适用上遇到困境。根据票据行为二阶段说之下的无因性，原因关系瑕疵的抗辩属无权利抗辩，不适用抗辩限制制度。票据行为二阶段下的无因性从传统人的抗辩中分离出无权利抗辩，缩小了传统人的抗辩的适用范围，能为二重无权抗辩、后手抗辩等新型票据案例提供有效的理论解释，并能明晰人的抗辩限制与票据行为独立原则、善意取得等相近制度的相互关系。这三个制度都是为了保护票据取得人而设计的，但各自又有不同的适用情况。从票据抗辩角度来看，票据行为独立原则与物的抗辩相关联；善意取得与无权利抗辩相关联；人的抗辩切断与狭义的人的抗辩相关联。第四章考察了票据行为二阶段说之下的无因性的例外。票据行为无因性促进了票据流通，但若无条件适用就会有违票据流通的宗旨。票据行为无因性的效力主要表现于人的抗辩限制，但当票据取得人恶意或无对价取得票据时，票据抗辩不受限制。除了恶意抗辩、无对价抗辩外，票据行为无因性原则的例外还体现在票据的直接当事人之间存在抗辩的情形，以及无权利抗辩和特殊背书情形下的抗辩等方面。本章各节通过案例分析的方法论证了各种票据行为无因性效力所不及的情形。第一节论述了无权利抗辩。依传统票据行为有因论，对于直接当事人之间的抗辩、后手的抗辩和二重无权抗辩，学者通常在坚持人的抗辩的个别性的前提下，依不当得利抗辩或恶意抗辩、滥用权利抗辩对抗持票人的请求，而依二阶段创造说为基础的权利转移行为有因论，把原因关系的瑕疵全都看成是无权利抗辩，这种解释更加妥当，能够做到理论上的统一。第二节论述了无对价抗辩。无对价的效力主要是人的抗辩限制的例外，除此之外，我国还应参酌英、美、法系票据法的相关规定，将给付对价作为善意取得的构成要件。第三节论述了恶意抗辩和善意者介入时的抗辩。在持票人主观上恶意的情况下，票据权利移转行为存在瑕疵，因此，不符合抗辩限制的适用要件，也不受善意取得的保护。对恶意的内涵，我国票据法采取的是最广义的理解，应顺应票据法国际统一趋势，以是否“明知有害债务人”作为判断恶意的标准。本章最后论述了期后背书、回头背书和委任取款背书等特殊背书情况下的抗辩问题。 关键词：票据行为，票据理论，票据行为无因性，票据行为二阶段说，票据抗辩，人的抗辩，无权利抗辩。

Research on Non-causation Principle in Action of Negotiable Instrument：Based on the Theory of two Phases of Negotiable Instrument Behavior.As a fundamental principle in Negotiable Instrument Law，non-causation principle in action of negotiable instrument plays a vital role in promoting circulation and protection of transaction security.Among academic circles，it still lacks in-depth study in this field.A series of problems are needed to be clarified，such as the definition of non-causation principle in action of negotiable instrument，the distinction between non-causation principle in action of negotiable instrument and its related concepts as well as its theoretical fundation，legal value and scope of validity，etc.The Negotiable Instrument Law of our country holds an extremely ambiguous attitude towards the non-causation principle which makes difficulties in exerting the function of negotiable in-strument and juridical practice.According to different negotiable instrument theories，their connotation，scope of validity varies greatly.By introducing the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior，the explanation of problems related to negotiable instrument will be more reasonable，advantageous as well as persuasive.Therefore，non-causality principle is applied to the thesis，basing on theories of negotiable instrument，elucidating the connotation of non-causation principle and the scope of vality.And meanwhile，the thesis conducted a prospective study on the brand-new forms of negotiable instrument problems like“dual non-right counterplea”and“subsequent party counterplea”，etc.The thesis consists of four chapters.Chapter One discussed the relation betweennon-causation principle and theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior.According to different negotiable instrument theories，the connotation，scope of validity，etc.defers considerably.Thus，the study of noncausation of negotiable instrument behaviour should seek its theoretical foundation from negotiable instrument theories.Firstly，the chapter analyzed their advantages and disadvantages respectively.However，comparatively speaking，the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior elucidated problems related with negotiable instrument is more rational，protecting the security of negotiable instrument circulation.Secondly，this chapter exposed the weakness of traditional two phases theory.It proved that right transfer behavior also exis-ted in the acceptance and guaranty of negotiable instrument and the the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior should be brought into force.The last part of the chapter focused on the interactive effects of non-causation principle of negotiable instrument and related theories.Based on the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior，negotiable instrument behavior is composed by debt burden behavior and right transfer behavior.The former is noncause behavior and the latter is causal behavior.Chapter Two discussed the connotation of non-causation principle based on the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior.The relation between bill relationship and bill cause is a basic points of great significance in theories of negotiable instrument law，consisting of non-causality constitution vs.causality constitution.The non-causation principle of negotiable instrument based on monism of action of negotiable instrument has various of usages which aroused great confusion in application.On the contrary，through introducing the theories of dualism of action of negotiable instrument，the thesis seperated assumed liability and right transfer behavior，regarding former as non-causality action vs.the latter as causality action，which plays a key role in understanding negotiable instrument systems.The independence principle of action on negotiable instrument is a problem related with flaws of assumed liability；the Bona Fide Acquisition closely linked with defects of right transfer behavior；counterpleare restriction related with defects of legal relationship besides the negotiable instrument rather than flawless negotiable instrument behavior；the non-causation principle of debt burden behavior indicates that it will not be affected by the legal behaviors besides the negotiable instrument.The debt burden behavior should compose of the form items and substantive items，while the signer with the right on negotiable instrument as well as capacity of negotiable instrument behavior should also have his expression of intention without flaw.This chapter focused on examples of“subsequent party counterplea”and“dual non-right counterplea”，which proved that the cause theory of right transfer behavior of negotiable instrument is more persuasive than the traditional power abuse theory under the category of non-causation negotiable instrument theory.Chapter Three defined the validity scope of non-causation principle based on the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior.The validity of non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior between two parties mainly presented in the form of inversion of onus probandi；while for indirect involved parties，personal counterplea restriction system is executed.Personal counterplea characterized by human nature and individuality，basing on non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior.Due to different theories of the field，the scopes of personal counterplea vary considerably.According to non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior，causation flaw counterplea refers to non-right counterplea，apply-ing for counterplea restriction，which will come up with difficulties in new cases like“subsequent party counterplea”and“dual non-right counterplea”and so on.Based on the the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior，causal relationship flaw counterplea which belongs to non-right counterplea is inapplicable to counterplea restriction system.The non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior under two phases seperated non-right counterplea from traditional personal counterplea，narrowing down its appliable scope，which provides valid theoretical elucidation for new cases like“dual non-right counterplea”and“subsequent party counterplea”，etc.And it clarified the relationship among similar systems like restriction of personal counterplea，independent principle of negotiable instrument behavior as well as the acquire in good faith.All of the above three systems are designed to protect the obtainer，whereas their appliable situations are quite different.From the perspective of negotiable instrument counterplea，the independent principle of negotiable instrument behavior is related to res counterplea；the acquire in good faith is relevant to non-right counterplea；personal counterplea closely linked with personal counterplea in narrow sense.Chapter Four investigated theexceptions of non-causation principle from the perspective of theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior.The non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior indeed promoted the circulation of ne-gotiable instrument.However，if it is applied unconditionally，it would violate the its original aims.The validity of non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior mainly presented as personal counterplea restriction，while obtainer acquire the negotiable instrument out of bad faith or without value，there is no restriction on counterplea.In addition，exceptions of noncausation principle also reflected in following aspects as the counterplea situation of involved parties，non-right counterplea and special endorsement，etc.This chapter verified exceptional situations of various negotiable instruments through case analysis .In section 1，the author discussed non-right counterplea.In accordance with traditional cause theory of negotiable instrument behavior，scholars used to protesting against the plea of holder for illegal profit counterplea，bad faith counterplea power abuse counterplea on the premise of counterplea individuality.Nevertheless，the cause theory of right transfer behavior based on the creation theory regards cause relationship flaws as non-right counterplea，which sounds more appropriate and consistent with the theory.Section 2 discussed non-consideration counterplea.Validity of non-consideration indicate the exception of personal counterplea.Additionally，our country should use some relevant articles in Negotiable Instrument Law of Anglo-American law system for reference，regarding consideration as constitute items of the acquire in good faith.Section 3 elucidated bad faith counterplea and counterplea against the party with good faith intervention.under the circumstance of the holder with subjective bad faith，negotiable instruments right transfer behavior has its flaw.Thus，it does not coincide with appliable condition of counterplea restriction，nor is protected by the Bona Fide Acquisition system.As for the connotation of bad faith，the broadest sense of comprehension was adopted in Negotiable Instrument Law of our country.By following the international trend of Negotiable Instrument Law，one should regard“whether it did harm to the debtor with intention”as a standard to judge the bad faith.The last section discussed counterplea problems relating to endorsement of overdue bill，return endorsement and endorsement be mandate，etc. Keywords： action of negotiable instrument，theories of negotiable instrument non-causation principle of negotiable instrument，theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior，negotiable instrument counterplea，personal counterplea，non-right counterplea.