|
|
|
| System Construction of Commercial Trial Thinking in the Codification Context |
| Li Yachao |
| Law School, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In the codification era, emphasis on rationalization and formal logic of law marked the transformation from rule by man to rule by law in a country’s judicial system. The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China has established a legislative model with the integration of civil and commercial law, yet more problems are exposed due to the deficiency of commercial law norms in the codification context. Compared with the explicit legal norms, it is more accepted that commercial trial thinking exists as the concept of commercial law, making it difficult to be fully implemented in judicial practice. Currently in China, it is infeasible to enact the General Principles of Commercial Law and Commercial Code at the legislative level in the short term. Therefore, how to highlight the distinctiveness of commercial law in commercial trial is particularly essential. However, in current researches on its distinctiveness, commercial law scholars still centered on theoretical studies. And the commercial trial thinking remains fragmented, with a huge gap with the systematic and structured thinking in the codification context, which severely constrains the thinking function in commercial trial.In the era of codification, researches on commercial trial thinking should transfer its emphasis from theory to norm and then to application, progressively achieving its systematic construction. It is imperative to highlight the distinct feature of commercial law regulation while actively refining judicial channels. Specifically, the content of commercial trial thinking should be grasped from three dimensions of “the distinctiveness of commercial relations, the standardization of commercial law concepts, and the refinement of judicial channels”. First, the distinctiveness of commercial relation should be clarified from the perspective of legal basis, proactively incorporating commercial elements and characteristics such as the profit-making nature of commercial entities, the high risk of commercial activities, and the benefit basis of commercial society. Current related studies are relatively sufficient but not systematic, so it is necessary to fully elaborate the distinctiveness of commercial relations from all aspects. Second, the concept of commercial law in the normative sense should be reinforced, so as to highlight its diverse regulatory concepts compared with civil law, including the concept of enhanced commercial liability and the concept of commercial externalism. Moreover, theories of commercial law will be driven to develop into commercial norms, thereby gradually realizing the transformation from commercial logic to legal norms. Compared with the abstract value or profit purpose of commercial law such as efficiency and security, the concepts of commercial law with stronger normative nature is more operable in commercial trial. Third, the traditional civil law adjudication methods and regulatory logic should be revised in judicial channels. In commercial trials, it must be fully acknowledged that commercial rights and interests are complex and uncertain, along with the weakening legal relations. The commercial autonomy spirit with greater respect must be entirely implemented in the balance between autonomy and regulation, to further expand the application of commercial features and concepts in practice. Since the values, principles and concepts of commercial law, at their cores, are the legal theory or even a kind of academic theory, emphasis should be placed on solving the problems of judicial channels in future study on commercial trial thinking. It is crucial but scarcely investigated in current studies on commercial law. Only with these efforts can the commercial trial thinking play a more substantial role in the era of codification, effectively making up for the severe deficiency and lag of commercial legislation, and laying the groundwork for the enactment of China’s General Principles of Commercial Law or even Commercial Code in the future.
|
|
Received: 24 February 2025
|
|
|
|
1 王利明：《论〈民法典〉实施中的思维转化——从单行法思维到法典化思维》，《中国社会科学》2022年第3期，第4-22，204页。
2 德］迪特尔·梅迪库斯：《德国民法总论》，邵建东译，北京：法律出版社，2013年。
3 江必新：《商事审判与非商事民事审判之比较研究》，《法律适用》2019年第15期，第3-12页。
4 赵万一：《商法的独立性与商事审判的独立化》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2012年第1期，第54-64页。
5 叶林：《商法理念与商事审判》，《法律适用》2007年第9期，第17-20页。
6 范健：《当代中国商法的理论渊源、制度特色与前景展望》，《法制与社会发展》2018年第5期，第62-74页。
7 王保树：《商事审判的理念与思维》，《山东审判》2010年第2期，第8-11页。
8 李志刚：《略论商事审判理念之实践运用》，《人民司法》2014年第15期，第49-53页。
9 郑彧：《民法逻辑、商法思维与法律适用》，《法学评论》2018年第4期，第82-93页。
10 杨峰：《商法思维的逻辑结构与司法适用》，《中国法学》2020年第6期，第160-182页。
11 黄茂荣：《法学方法与现代民法》（第七版），厦门：厦门大学出版社，2024年。
12 德］克劳斯-威廉·卡纳里斯：《法律漏洞的确定：法官在法律外续造法之前提与界限的方法论研究》（第2版），杨旭译，北京：北京大学出版社，2023年。
13 施天涛：《商法学》（第六版），北京：法律出版社，2020年。
14 范健：《商事审判独立性研究》，《南京师大学报（社会科学版）》2013年第3期，第74-84页。
15 余冬爱：《民、商区分原则下的商事审判理念探析》，《人民司法》2011年第3期，第79-82页。
16 彭春、孙国荣：《大民事审判格局下商事审判理念的反思与实践——以基层法院为调查对象》，《法律适用》2012年第12期，第68-72页。
17 德］卡尔·拉伦茨：《法学方法论》，黄家镇译，北京：商务印书馆，2020年。
18 刘力：《论民商事案件裁判方法的反思与完善——以请求权基础分析方法为中心》，《东方法学》2020年第1期，第83-96页。
19 胡坚明：《请求权基础规则与法典化立法》，《华东政法大学学报》2016年第6期，第38-48页。
20 刘斌：《出资义务加速到期规则的解释论》，《财经法学》2024年第3期，第114-128页。
21 吴香香：《请求权基础思维及其对手》，《南京大学学报（哲学·人文科学·社会科学）》2020年第2期，第90-106，159页。
22 蒋大兴：《〈商法通则〉/〈商法典〉总则的可能体系——为什么我们认为“七编制”是合适的》，《学术论坛》2019年第1期，第38-54页。
23 李建伟、岳万兵：《董事对债权人的信义义务——公司资本制度视角的考察》，《中国政法大学学报》2022年第2期，第100-112页。
24 樊纪伟：《我国双重代表诉讼制度架构研究》，《华东政法大学学报》2016年第4期，第112-123页。
25 李秀文：《母公司股东权益保护视角下我国多重代表诉讼制度构建》，《东南学术》2019年第6期，第239-245页。
26 赵旭东：《第三种投资：对赌协议的立法回应与制度创新》，《东方法学》2022年第4期，第90-103页。
27 王洪亮：《违约金酌减规则论》，《法学家》2015年第3期，第138-151，179-180页。
28 罗昆：《我国违约金司法酌减的限制与排除》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2016年第2期，第115-126页。
29 《德国商法典》，杜景林、卢谌译，北京：法律出版社，2010年。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
