“其他具有担保功能的合同”的概念强调了担保功能。担保功能是指主要保障债权实现，增强债务人信用以及促进社会资金融通只是担保的附带功能。对其范畴应采广义解释，只要认定具有担保功能，且不属于民法典物权编中的担保合同即可，以预留未来的发展空间。就担保合同的性质问题，鉴于我国采取的功能主义与形式主义相结合的立法模式，担保合同权利人享有的并不是担保物权或所有权，而是担保权。此担保权范畴较美国《统一商法典》下的担保权的概念要小，不包括担保物权以及法定担保。担保权由担保合同通过公示方式设立，能够产生对抗效力。而公示方法应一元化，即统一要求登记。普通动产登记平台和特殊动产登记平台也需进一步统一，并统一采取声明登记制和登记对抗主义。实践中尚未被法律法规规定可以登记的担保权也具有登记能力，只需在法定登记机关登记。当担保权与担保物权人竞存时，有观点认为应用《民法典》第414条解决顺位问题，认为该条属于顺位问题的一般规则。但实际上该条不能处理担保权与质权之间的关系，故抽象出担保制度真正的一般顺位规则实属必要。考虑到《民法典》第414条、415条都反映了公示的担保权利优先的机理，这也符合担保权的对抗效力，故应将公示在先权利在先作为担保物权乃至担保权的一般顺位规则。而顺位规则相较登记对抗制度而言特殊性在于不考虑第三人的主观状态，这更有利于实现规则的确定性，故善意不应作为考量因素。有追索权的保理的顺位也应依此规则确定，《民法典》第768条将通知时间作为顺位确定因素有失妥当。此外，担保物权中的特殊顺位规则涉及到对价款融资、正常活动维护等方面的考量，担保权应在进一步明确制度要件的基础上予以参照。但《担保制度解释》第56条相关规定应予以修改，且正常经营买受人规则无需设立善意要件。担保权的对抗效力也体现在实现方面，即可以优先受偿。担保权有基于其基础合同的合同请求权和担保物权实现两种路径。对此，担保权人应先行使合同请求权，再参照担保物权实现程序。合同路径中取回权与解除权不同，可以由权利人视需求自由选择，解除不是取回的前提，两者可以补位。就取回方式而言，而权利人可以以和平方式自行取回，或者协商取回，《担保制度解释》第64条忽视了自行取回的优势与可能，以及将协商取回作为行使其他权利的前提，有失恰当。当事人无法依合同实现权利的，可参照适用担保物权实现程序。

The concept of "other contracts with security functions" emphasizes the security function. The guarantee function is mainly to guarantee the realization of creditor's rights, and to enhance the debtor's credit and promote social financing are only incidental functions of guarantee. Its scope should be interpreted broadly, as long as it has the guarantee function and does not belong to the guarantee contract in the title of the Civil Code, so as to reserve space for future development. As for the nature of the guarantee contract, in view of the legislative model of functionalism and formalism adopted in our country, the right holder of the guarantee contract enjoys not the right of guarantee or ownership, but the right of security. This category of security right is smaller than the concept of a security right under the United States Uniform Commercial Code and does not include existing legal guarantees and legal securities. A security right is created by a security contract through publicity and can have countervail effect. The method of publicity should be unified, that is, unified registration requirements. General movable property registration platform and special movable property registration platform also need to be further unified, and unified declaration registration system and registration antagonism. In practice, security rights that have not yet been stipulated by laws and regulations to be registered also have the ability to register, which only needs to be registered in the statutory registration authority.When the security right and the holder of the security interest compete, there is a view that article 414 of the Civil Code should be used to solve the sequencing problem, which is considered to be the general rule on sequencing. In practice, however, this article does not deal with the relationship between the security right and the pledge right, so it is necessary to abstract the real general order rule of the security system. Considering that articles 414 and 415 of the Civil Code both reflect the priority mechanism of publicized security rights, which is also in line with the antagonizing effect of security rights, the precedence of publicized prior rights should be taken as the general order rule of security real rights and even security rights. Compared with the registration and confrontation system, the special feature of the ranking rule is that it does not consider the subjective state of the third party, which is more conducive to the realization of the certainty of the rule, so good faith should not be taken into consideration. The ranking of factoring with recourse should also be determined in accordance with this rule, and Article 768 of the Civil Code is inappropriate to use the time of notice as a determining factor of the ranking. In addition, the special order rule of security interest involves the consideration of price financing, maintenance of normal activities and other aspects, and security rights should be referred to on the basis of further clarifying the institutional requirements. However, the relevant provisions of article 56 of the Guarantee System Interpretation should be modified, and there is no need to establish a bona fide requirement in the normal operation buyer rule.The counter-effectiveness of a security right is also reflected in the aspect of realization, that is, priority for recovery. There are two ways to realize security right: contract claim right based on its basic contract and security right. In this regard, the security right holder should first put forward the contract claim right, and then refer to the procedure of realization of security interest. In the contract path, the right to take back is different from the right to rescind, which can be freely chosen by the right holder according to demand. As far as the method of retrieval is concerned, and the right holder can take it back by himself in a peaceful way or through negotiation, Article 64 of the Interpretation of the Security System ignores the advantages and possibilities of taking it back by himself, and regards negotiated retrieval as a prerequisite for exercising other rights, which is inappropriate. If the parties cannot realize their rights in accordance with the contract, they may refer to the procedure for realizing the real right of security.