侵权责任(损害赔偿)请求权与不当得利返还请求权的关系应当在“债”的体系中展开,债的概念是二者关系研究的逻辑起点。在承认非给付不当得利的基础上,侵权责任请求权与不当得利返还请求权会发生关联,对二者关系的理论和立法存在三种观点。从比较法的经验与我国目前的理论与实践来看,我们应当坚持竞合肯定说,这种竞合应当是“请求权竞合”而非“选择性竞合”。承认二者竞合应以肯定两种制度的独立性为前提,两种制度应各自严守本分和其构成要件,实现制度的衔接与协力,既不缺席也不越位。但在我国立法和司法解释中极少量的“请求权越界”问题可以作为例外存在,不会对两种请求权独立性产生较大冲击。 The relationship between the right of tort (damages) and the right of return of unjust enrichment should be carried out in the system of “debt”. The concept of debt is the logical starting point for the study of the relationship between the two. On the basis of recognizing the unjust enrichment of non-payment, the right of tort liability and the right of return of unjust enrichment are related, and there are three kinds of views on the theory and legislation about the relationship between the two. From the experience of comparative law and the current theory and practice in our country, we should insist on the co-operation and affirm that such co-opetition should be “competing claims” rather than “optional co-opetition.” To admit that the two are competing should be based on the affirmation of the independence of the two systems, the two systems should strictly abide by their duties and their components so as to achieve the convergence and cooperation of the system, neither absent nor out of place. However, a very small number of “cross-border claims” in our country's legislation and judicial interpretation can exist as exceptions without any major impact on the independence of the two claims.