“原因力”概念的源流疏證

原因力是一個根植于中國自主話語體系且以民族語言習慣與民族文化環境為基礎的特色法學概念。其在我國法律史中的主流含義有三種，分別指代歸責原因、與有過失中兼具主客觀特性的減責標準、數人侵權中事實查明的責任分擔客觀標準。原因力來源於清末民初我國學者對日文刑法文獻的引介。民國中期，原因力被我國學者應用于與有過失制度中。我國學者將與有過失中加害人減責事由稱之為原因力。新中國成立初期，大量自然科學教科書上的用語習慣諸如原因(力)等用法強化了原因力術語的使用頻率與傳播速度。上世紀60年代產生的日本法上的減責寄予度為我國學者在與有過失中深度運用原因力提供了比較法借鑒。上世紀90年代左右，原因力所指代的數人侵權責任分擔中事實查明工具的含義，在本土化語境中才開始出現並逐步確立。21世紀初，原因力術語由學說進入司法解釋、司法行政行業標準，並在當下的司法實踐中形成了穩固的概念含義。

Causative potency is a distinctive legal concept embedded in China's indigenous legal knowledge system and shaped by its linguistic conventions and broader cultural context. In Chinese legal history, the concept has developed three core doctrinal meanings: first, as a general notion of causation; second, as a standard for mitigating liability combining both subjective and objective characteristics under comparative negligence; and third, as a criterion for apportioning liability among multiple tortfeasors. The term causative potency originated from the introduction of Japanese criminal law by Chinese scholars in the Early 20th century. Later, Chinese scholars began using this term in the field of civil law in 1930s. Causative potency was applied by Chinese scholars to the system of negligence; they referred to the victim's contributory role in cases of negligence as causative potency. During the 1950s, the widespread use of the term yuanyin-li (原因－力) in natural science textbooks reinforced the linguistic and conceptual salience of causative potency within Chinese legal thought. Comparative engagement with the Japanese doctrine of liability mitigation, which crystallized in the 1960s, further shaped Chinese scholars' application of causative potency in negligence analysis. Around the 1990s, the meaning of causative potency as a tool for ascertaining the evidence of liability apportionment in cases of multiple torts emerged last. In the early 21st century, the term causative potency moved from academic theory into Supreme People's Court judicial interpretations and administration industry standards, and has formed a stable conceptual meaning in current judicial practice.