合同解除权是合同解除制度的关键。若合同因违约而解除，传统学说认为只有非违约方有法定解除权。但在“冯玉梅案”之后，这种观点不断受到挑战，支持违约方解除合同的裁判越来越多，传统观点已经不能应对日益复杂的实践需要。《民法典合同编（草案二次审议稿）》第353条第3款赋予违约方在特定情形下的合同解除权，这一创设性的立法规定令人欣喜，然而，在最新公布的《民法典合同编（草案三次审议稿）》中，删除了这一规定。此外，《九民纪要》对司法实践中存在的违约方解除合同问题作出了回应，明确在符合一定条件的前提下，违约方可以通过司法解除模式解除合同。这造成立法与司法的割裂与矛盾，影响中国统一、多层次的法律体系的形成，这一问题应通过立法解决。本文先从司法实践、现行法体系两个层面对违约方解除权的正当性和必要性进行分析和论证，在此基础上，从法律价值理论和比较法立法例两个层面论证将违约方解除权确立为司法解除模式的优越性。首先，在司法实践层面，在所选案例中，法院持支持立场的案例多于持否定立场的案例，可见允许违约方解除合同在司法实践上是正当的。但法院的裁判理由和援引的法律条文不尽统一，造成“同案不同判”的局面。因此，以立法形式对这一问题进行明确规定具有必要性。在现行法分析层面，在比较违约方合同解除权的规定与情势变更制度、《合同法》第110条继续履行的例外规定之后，本文认为三者在适用条件、适用程序、法律效果等方面有显著差别，后两者并不能替代违约方合同解除权，故而民法典有必要增加违约方合同解除的特别规则。在法律价值理论层面上，在对秩序价值、效率价值以及公平价值进行衡量和取舍的基础上，本文认为，司法解除模式优于直接赋予违约方法定解除权模式，司法解除模式有利于兼顾效率与公平，贯彻合同严守、信赖保护的原则。从比较法上看，各国普遍未规定违约方享有法定解除权，但均有考虑违约方的利益，因此司法解除模式的违约方合同解除权有据可循。但是，违约方的合同解除权不是法定解除权，必须对其适用条件进行严格限制。只有在出现合同僵局、不能实现合同目的、违约方非恶意违约、不解除合同将会造成明显不公平，并且损害赔偿能够填补守约方所受损失的情况下，法院才能支持违约方解除合同的诉讼请求。只有这样才能妥善地化解合同僵局，平衡合同双方当事人的利益，促进中国法治实现公平和效率。

The right to terminate the contract is the core of the contract cancellation system. When a contract is cancelled due to breach of contract, traditional doctrine holds that only non-defaulting parties have the right to terminate the contract. However, after the “Feng Yumei’s case”, this view was continuously challenged, and more and more referees supported the termination of contract by the defaulting party. The traditional view can no longer meet the increasingly complex practical needs. Article 353, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code on Contracts (Second Review Draft) grants the defaulting party the right to terminate the contract under certain circumstances. This creative legislative provision is gratifying. However, in the newly published Civil Code on Contracts (Third Review Draft) , this paragraph was deleted. In addition, the Minutes of the National Courts' Civil and Commercial Trial Work Conference (hereinafter referred to as the “Conference Minutes”) responded to the problem of breach of contract by the defaulting party in judicial practice. It is clear that the defaulting party can terminate the contract through the judicial release mode if certain conditions are met. This has caused the separation and contradiction between legislation and justice, and affected the formation of a unified and multi-level legal system in China. This issue should be resolved through legislation.This article first analyzes and demonstrates the legitimacy and necessity of the defaulting party ’s right of cancellation from the perspectives of judicial practice and the current legal system. On this basis, it demonstrates that the defaulting party ’s right to cancel is based on the two aspects of legal value theory and comparative law legislation Established as the superiority of the judicial release model. First of all, at the level of judicial practice, in the selected cases, the court has more supportive cases than negative ones. It can be seen that allowing the defaulting party to terminate the contract is justified in judicial practice. However, the court's reasons for judgment and the legal provisions invoked are not uniform, resulting in a situation of "different judgments in the same case". Therefore, it is necessary to specify this issue in the form of legislation.At the level of analysis of the current law, after comparing the provisions of the breaching party ’s right to terminate the contract with the situation change system and the exceptions to the continued performance of Article 110 of the Contract Law, this article believes that the three have significant aspects in terms of application conditions, application procedures, legal effects, etc. The difference is that the latter two cannot replace the defaulting party ’s right to terminate the contract, so it is necessary for the Civil Code to add special rules for the defaulting party ’s contract cancellation. At the level of legal value theory, based on the measurement and selection of order value, efficiency value and fair value, this paper believes that the judicial release model is better than the model of directly granting the breach of contract the right to release, the judicial release model is conducive to taking into account both efficiency and efficiency Be fair and implement the principles of strict contract observance and trust protection. From the perspective of comparative law, countries generally do not stipulate that the defaulting party enjoys the right to terminate the contract, but all consider the interests of the defaulting party. Therefore, the judicial cancellation model of the defaulting party has the right to terminate the contract.However, the defaulting party ’s right to terminate the contract is not a statutory right to cancel, and it should adopt a judicial release model, and its applicable conditions must be strictly restricted. The court can support the defaulting party’s claim only when there is a deadlock in the contract, the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, the non-malicious breach of the breach by the defaulting party, and the non-cancellation of the contract will cause significant unfairness, and the damages can compensate the loss suffered by the defaulting party. Only in this way can the contract deadlock be properly resolved, the interests of both parties to the contract can be balanced, and the fairness and efficiency of the rule of law in China can be promoted.