論民法的淵源－－以我國民事立法和理論為中心

Research on the Origin of Civil Law-- Centured on the Civial Legeslation and Theory in China

民法淵源是民事立法和民法理論中一項根本性的制度，對立法者科學制定法律、守法者準確預見行為後果以及司法者正確適用法律都具有重要意義。但是，長期以來，我國的民事立法者和民法理論界都未對這一制度引起足夠的重視。立法上的任意不僅沒能給學術批判提供一個可以討論的平臺，還對民事主體的民事活動和民事司法造成了相當的負面影響，使得守法者和司法者在某些領域無所適從。理論研究中，雖然學者們都將民法淵源作為民法學的重要內容，但卻主要集中在對外國民法淵源的討論，對於我國的民法淵源制度，則大多一筆帶過，既少對現行法中民法淵源規定的討論和評析，也沒有對各種民法淵源形式存在的正當性和存在樣態進行深入探討。從方法論上而言，學者們的論述既少法律實證，又鮮見法哲學的方法和整體的方法，即使是學者們用得比較多的比較法的方法，其運用亦相當不夠。在這樣的背景之下，本文力圖從法哲學角度出發，站在法治的高度上，通過運用整體的方法和比較法的方法，針對我國民事立法中關於民法淵源的規定和學者們的不同觀點進行深入探討。本文採用總分式的結構。第一至第六部分為總述，分別就民法淵源與法的淵源、民法淵源與公法淵源、外國（或地區）民法淵源、學者就我國民法淵源的不同表述、我國立法中關於民法淵源的規定等進行論述和分析。鑒於“法的淵源”的多義，也鑒於我國學者對民法淵源的論述缺乏宏觀視野，本文首先將法的淵源分為法的內容的來源、法的拘束力的來源和法的表現形式，並運用整體的方法將民法淵源納入其與民法內容的來源和民法的拘束力的來源的關係中進行考察；考慮到作為私法的民法與公法在理念上的差異，本文專門從部門法的視角對兩者在法律淵源上的差異進行了比較；通過運用比較法的方法對典型大陸法系國家民法典關於民法淵源規定的比較，本文歸納出具體化規定模式、具體化規定和抽象化規定相結合的模式兩種立法模式，並對其優劣進行了評析；通過對學者們關於我國民法淵源表述和我國立法中關於民法淵源的規定的歸納和分析，一方面指出其中存在的問題，另一方面也為本文分述部分的論述做了準備。第七至第九部分為分述，分別就各種具體民法淵源形式存在的妥適性和存在樣態進行了深入分析，其中包括了制定法、習慣法、法理、條約、判例、政策以及團體性協定等內容。第十部分為結論。通過對總述、分述部分的總結，作者提出在未來民事立法中對民法淵源問題應當採取的態度，包括在《立法法》和民事法律之間合理分配關於民法淵源制度的規定；同時規定適用於整個民事領域的法律淵源制度和適用於具體民事領域的法律淵源制度；從法律適用角度即裁判規則的角度規定民法淵源制度；規範對於民法淵源的表述等。

The origin of civil law is the basic system in legislation and theories of this law, which is of great importance for legislators to make law scientifically, of great importance for legalists to foresee the result of behavior accurately, and of great importance for judicators to choose law correctly. However, the legislation and theories of civil law in our country haven’t been paying much attention to this system during a long time. The arbitrary legislation hasn’t been providing a discussion platform for academic criticism. What’s more, it has been also bringing lots of negative influence to civil activity and justice, all of which made the legalists and judicators don’t know how to deal with in some areas. In the theory, though scholars treat the origin of civil law as an important part in this law, most of them have been only focusing on this system in the foreign countries. They haven’t discussed and critiqued the origin of civil law in current law of our country, and even haven’t deeply investigated every kinds of civil law’s origin and their manifestation. As far as the methodology, the scholars haven’t been discussing the legal practice either, and even haven’t been using legal philosophy and integral method. Besides that, though lots of them have used a large number of comparison methods, they haven’t been using them abundantly. In this context, this paper try to stand on the point of legal philosophy, use integral and comparison method, and then discuss the viewpoints which comes from different scholars and the origin of civil law system in our current legal legislation. The paper is divided into three parts. Accordingly, the first part is general discussion (from first to sixth section). This part comments and analysis the origin of civil law and the origin of law; and the origin of civil law and that of Public law; what’s more, it also introduces the origin of civil law in other countries and districts, and the scholars’ different expressions of civil law’s origin; besides that, it gives us the regulation of the civil law’s origin in the legal legislation in our country. Because of the various meanings of “law’s origin”, this essay firstly divides the law’s origin into some parts. These parts include the origin of law’s content, the origin of law’s restraint, and the expression of law. Besides that, the paper also use the integral method to bring the origin of civil law into the relationship between civil law’s origin and the origin of civil law’s contents and restraint to analysis this system. In the consideration of different principles of the private law and the public law, this essay stands on the point of department law to compare the origin of these two kinds of law. Besides that, it also uses comparison method to comment the advantages and disadvantages of the origin of civil law in different civil law countries, and then sums up two kinds of legislation framework, which is concrete framework and concrete-abstract framework. By analyzing the scholars’ different expressions of the origin of civil law, and the regulations of the civil law’s origin in the legislation of our country, the paper point out some problems which is worthy of discussion, and which is also preparing for the second part at the same time. The second part is the concrete discussion (from the seventh to ninth section). It deeply investigates the suitability and existence form of every kinds of civil law’s origin. These kinds of origin include enacted law, customary law, legal principal, treaty, case, policy, and group agreement, and so on. The last part is conclusion (the tenth section). By summarizing the first part and second part, the author expresses his own opinion about the origin of civil law in our civil legislation in the future. In the author’s opinion, it is the high time to distributed the regulations of civil law’s origin between “Legislation Law” and civil law; And it is of great importance to put emphasize on regulating the law’s origin system in entire and concrete civil area at the same time; Further more, it is also necessary for us to make every effort to regulate the system at the point of practicing law； Last but not the most, don’t forget to correct the expressions of the origin of civil law, and so on.