論作為民法法源的“法理”

On“Jurisprudence”as the Source of Civil Law

"我國《民法典》第10條未將“法理”規定為第三位階的法源。在理論上,除少數學者反對設立第三順位法源外,多數學者贊同規定第三順位法源,惟對其原因基本未詳盡展開。無論是從法源條款的性質、使法源條款真正具有實益、為法律“續造”提供合法性基礎的角度來看,還是從《民法典》已賦予法官較廣泛司法權、我國民事法官依“法理”填補法律漏洞成為較為普遍的現實來看,抑或從發揮法理的“學科溝通功能”來看,確立第三順位法源均有其必要性。從立法技術來看,將第三順位法源表述為“民法基本原則”並非最優,仍以“法理”的表述為宜,因為“法理”的內涵與外延比“(民法)基本原則”更為豐富。除民法基本原則外,“法理”可能是非屬民法基本原則範疇的民法基本原理、未明定的民法原則;此外,“法理”也可能是制定法乃至習慣法上的法律原則。"

"Article 10 of China’s Civil Code does not stipulate“jurisprudence”as the third level source of law. In theory, except for a few scholars who oppose the establishment of the third-ranked source of law, most scholars agree to stipulate the third-ranked source of law, but the reasons behind it are basically unexplained. It is necessary to establish the third-ranked source of law, whether it is from the perspective of the nature of the source of law clauses, making the source of law clauses truly beneficial and providing a legal basis for the continuation of the law, or from the perspective of the Civil Code that has given judges more extensive judicial powers, and from the more common reality that our country’s civil judges follow the“jurisprudence”to fill legal loopholes, even from the perspective of the“legal review function”with“disciplinary communication function”of jurisprudence. Taking legislative technique into account, it is unreasonable to express the third-level source of law as“the basic principles of civil law”, instead it is still appropriate to express the“jurisprudence”because the connotation and extension of the“jurisprudence”are more abundant than the“basic principles (of civil law)”."