立法應當是抽象的嗎？

抽象、普遍或一般等詞的區別僅是用語喜好問題，實際指代了立法的效力範圍不特定性與權利義務未完結性兩大特徵。只要不滿足這兩大特徵的任何一種，都可以稱之為具體法或個別法。「立法應當抽象」並非具有普適性。法國是立法抽象性思想的發源地，其理由是平等原則。德國直到魏瑪後期才產生了以抽象性教義制約立法權的主張，其主要目的是維護權力分立。立法的抽象性從來就不是英美法上的傳統與要求。通過分析我國實定法規範與事實可以看到，針對特定人、特定事項等的效力範圍特定性立法具有正當性，無需對其特別約束。只有出於對作為公民基本權利的程序權保障，在制定侵害性質權利義務完結性立法時，才應當檢驗其合憲性。

"The difference between abstract, universal or general terms is only a matter of preference in terms. In fact, it refers to the two major characteristics of the non-specificity of the scope of effectiveness of legislation and the incompleteness of rights and obligations. As long as either of these two characteristics is not satisfied, it can be called specific law or individual law. ''Legislation should be abstract'' is not universal. France is the birthplace of the abstract thought of legislation, and the reason is the principle of equality. It was not until the late Weimar period that Germany came to have the idea of restricting legislative power with abstract doctrine, whose main purpose was to safeguard the separation of powers. The abstraction of legislation has never been the tradition and requirement of common law. Through the analysis of the constitutional norms and facts in China, we can see that the legislation aiming at the specific scope of validity of specific persons and specific matters is legitimate and does not need special restrictions. On the other hand, only in order to protect the procedural rights of citizens as fundamental rights, can we test its constitutionality when enacting the conclusive legislation of infringing rights and obligations."