摘要
中国《民法典》的出台是中国法治发展的一座里程碑,也引起了国外民法学界关注。在德国学者眼中,《民法典》完全可与世界已有民法典比肩,不过其创新部分仍有待时间检验。同时,条文表述的俭省、规范之间体系关联的模糊、中德相同概念的不同内涵、德国学者对中国法实践了解的缺乏、路径依赖的局限等因素,导致德国学者关于《民法典》的论述中出现困惑甚至可能产生误解与误读。对德国学者关于中国《民法典》评价的“再评价”,既应考虑德国学者对《民法典》立法背景和条文内容的理解是否准确,也需对照中国学者对相关问题的学术见解,通过比较分析才能做出更为客观的评价。德国学者的讨论与评述为中国全面客观认识《民法典》的进步及不足提供了有益的域外视角,也凸显了中德学术交流的积极意义并提供了重要素材。
The promulgation of the Chinese Civil Code(CCC)is a milestone in the development of Chinese law and has also attracted the attention of foreign civil law scholars.German scholars have commented on the CCC from the perspective of structural arrangements,specific institutions and value orientations.In particular,legal figures with the most German characteristics,such as Storerhaftung,acts in rem,Abstraktionsprinzip,obligations of protection,and primary and secondary claims,are selected to compare with the CCC.Structurally,German scholars believe that the CCC has borrowed the Pandectic system but is still relatively thin in terms of the stock of norms.Some articles are too simplified and the use of references is too rare.Substantively,German scholars affirmed the establishment of basic principles in the General Part and the provisions on civil subjects,but questioned the approach to gross disparity.In the Book on Property,German scholars believe that although China generally adopts the Principle of Separation,it does not distinguish between an act of obligation and that of disposal.In the Book on Contracts,China's system of remedies for breach of contract is considered to follow a unitary approach.Specific performance is considered to be realized not through claims,but through civil liability;there is no fixed order in the availability of remedies.Protection obligations do not constitute a supporting concept of contract law.Regarding the compilation of personality rights in an independent book in the CCC,German scholars'views tend to be neutral.In the fields of status law,which has large differences in legal norms between China and Germany,it is difficult for German scholars to make in-depth comparisons.In terms of the Book on Torts,the CCC is deemed to be mainly a continuation of existing laws.In the eyes of German scholars,although the CCC is to a certain extent insufficient in protecting the weaker parties,it definitely stands at par with the existing civil codes.However,its innovative parts still need to be tested by time.Although German scholars try to give objective judgments,factors such as the parsimonious expression of the provisions of the CCC,the ambiguity of the systematic relationship between norms,the different connotations of the same concepts in China and Germany,the lack of understanding of Chinese legal practice,and path dependence have led to confusions,misunderstandings and misinterpretations in German scholars'discussions.Due to the divergence of the interests of Chinese and German legal scholarship,there is still room for further indepth exchanges between China and Germany in the fields of quasi-contracts and chattel security that Chinese scholars are more concerned about.The promulgation of the CCC has injected new impetus into academic exchanges between China and Germany.Going forward,Chinese and German scholars need to create platforms for interaction with a calm and pragmatic attitude,in order to enhance mutual understanding and trust and promote the integration of legal cultures.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2023年第6期5-28,共24页
Global Law Review
