论文部分内容阅读
我国学界对法源问题的研究还没有深入地展开,目前主流的法源观仍然是制定法实证主义。然而,制定法实证主义的法源观并不能准确反映真实的法源关系,而且会对法学研究造成很大的危害。通过历史分析,我们可以看到,民法典、法官法和法学家法之间存在一种此消彼长的互动关系。法典在优士丁尼之后一直处于法源的上层;法官法在古典罗马法时期之后遭受很大的限制,最终在20世纪获得复兴;法学家法即使居于次要地位,也一直为法源提供稳定的支持。法源关系的发展史揭示了不同时期的法源观,我国民法典的编纂以及民法学研究可以从中得到一些有益的启示。首先,从法学家法和制定法的关系来看,民法典编纂的意义不大,不会对我国司法实践和民法理论产生太大的影响。其次,我国民法学研究不应过分注重法条解释,应避免受到“民法典牢房”和“概念法学”思维方式的限制。最后,民法典的教科书功能应当被取消。
The research on the legal source in our country has not been carried out in depth yet. At present, the mainstream legal source view is still to formulate the positivism. However, the development of the legal source view of the positivism does not accurately reflect the true relationship between the source of law and the law, and will cause great harm to the study of law. Through historical analysis, we can see that there is a reciprocal relationship between civil code, law of judges and jurist law. The Codex has been at the upper level of Fa-Fa since Yudindi; the Judiciary Law was severely curtailed after the classical Roman law and eventually rejuvenated in the twentieth century; jurist law, albeit secondary, has been provided to Fa-source Stable support. The history of the relationship between law and source reveals the source of law in different periods, the compilation of our civil code and the study of civil law can get some useful inspiration. First of all, judging from the relationship between jurist law and statutory law, the codification of civil code is of little significance and will not have much impact on the judicial practice and civil law theory of our country. Second, the study of civil law in our country should not be too much emphasis on the interpretation of the law, should be avoided by the “civil law cells” and “concept of law” way of thinking restrictions. Finally, the textbook function of civil code should be abolished.