|
|
|
| Gains and Losses of “Blank Spaces”: Reflections on the Characteristics of Private Law in the Chinese Legal Tradition |
| Wang Shuaiyi1,2 |
1.Law School, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 102488, China
2.Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 100720, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract By examining the blank space characteristic of private law in the Chinese legal tradition, this article analyzes the unique status, historical background, manifestations, and developmental significance of private law within the system. It explores the reasons for the formation of the blank space in Chinese private law and its dual nature. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of inheriting and innovating the features of Chinese private law during modernization and envisions its value and mission in constructing a modern Chinese civilization.The concept of the Chinese legal system is not an inherent term within China’s traditional governance framework. Instead, it emerged in the early 20th century within the context of modern comparative law. Its primary features include a system based on laws and decrees, supplemented by rituals and customs, creating a traditional legal system centered on criminal law enforcement. The formation and development of the Chinese legal system reflect not only the influence of Chinese culture on legal frameworks but also the recognition and adoption of Chinese legal systems by East Asian countries.The legal system of the Chinese tradition prominently emphasizes public law, with criminal law at its core to embody state authority. In contrast, private law exhibits significant ambiguity and the characteristic of “blank spaces”. These “blank spaces” are not merely gaps in the law but represent a unique cultural approach to rights and obligations: Confucian ethical principles (li) served as a critical foundation for regulating individual and social behavior, coexisting with formal legal decrees to shape the overall framework of the Chinese legal system.The blank space in private law was profoundly influenced by Confucian culture. Confucianism prioritizes moral persuasion and social harmony, favoring the resolution of disputes through ethics and customs while minimizing legal intervention. This approach fostered a judicial tradition that prioritized autonomy of will and local customs, resulting in limited statutory provisions regarding private rights. This model reflects traditional China’s distinctive understanding of the law’s function and social needs.The characteristic of blank space in private law within the Chinese legal tradition had certain advantages in traditional times and demonstrated a form of modernity. The blank space in Chinese private law endowed subjects with significant freedom, highlighting the autonomy of will in transactions and social interactions. Key aspects include: Freedom of private contracts: private law largely relied on customary law and spontaneous rules, with minimal interference from state power. Judicial flexibility: traditional judicial practices protected numerous rights by resolving specific disputes, reflecting a flexible application of laws. This freedom and autonomy gave the Chinese legal tradition the embryonic spirit of modern legal governance while providing an essential perspective on the operation of laws in traditional society.However, the blank space in private law also presented limitations, primarily reflected in the uncertainty of rights protection. Key issues include: (1) Insufficient legislative guarantees: The lack of explicit provisions for private rights in statutory law led to reliance on judicial practices in individual cases, which proved unstable during regime changes or social upheavals. (2) Weak rights awareness: Confucianism’s emphasis on ritual humility and compromise diluted the active pursuit of individual rights. This permissive legal approach, achieved at the expense of freedom, adversely affected the stability and continuity of private law, particularly during periods of economic development and social transformation.The private law characteristics of the Chinese legal tradition reflect a unique interplay of culture and history. Its openness and adaptability allowed it to evolve into a coherent system over a long period. When studying the Chinese legal tradition, one should combine comparative legal perspectives with historical experience and modern needs, respect the tradition of freedom and autonomy in Chinese private law, and draw from the clarity and stability of rights protection in Western legal systems.The reconstruction of the Chinese legal system should embody openness and inclusiveness to respond to modern legal demands. In the context of globalization, this effort is not only a continuation of traditional culture but also a contribution to contemporary legal civilization. By drawing wisdom from culture, integrating the spirit of freedom in the Chinese legal system with modern legal governance concepts, and providing more definite legal protections for private rights, it will enhance cultural centripetal force and engage in dialogue and fusion with other legal systems. This will revitalize the Chinese legal system in a new era.The blank space characteristic of private law in the Chinese legal tradition demonstrates the spirit of freedom and autonomy in traditional legal systems while exposing the shortcomings of inadequate rights protection. The article argues that researches on the Chinese legal tradition in modern construction should be rooted in history while focusing on the future. Through creative transformation of traditional culture, the core spirit of autonomy of will in private law should be fully inherited and developed during the modernization of the legal system. By drawing on global legal traditions, the Chinese legal system can achieve a balance of openness, inclusiveness, and modernity at a new historical stage, forming distinctive features of private law with Chinese characteristics and contributing unique wisdom and experience to global legal governance.
|
|
Received: 11 November 2024
|
|
|
|
1 德］K·茨威格特、H·克茨：《比较法总论》，潘汉典、米健、高鸿钧等译，北京：法律出版社，2004年。
2 赵明：《中华法系的百年历史叙事》，《法学研究》2022年第1期，第3-21页。
3 黄静嘉：《中国法制史论述丛稿》，北京：清华大学出版社，2006年。
4 高明士：《律令法与天下法》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2013年。
5 蒋澧泉：《中华法系立法之演进》，张婧整理，见曾宪义主编：《法律文化研究》第五辑，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2010年，第580-591页。
6 日］大庭脩：《秦汉法制史研究》，徐世虹等译，上海：中西书局，2017年。
7 日］冨谷至：《汉唐法制史研究》，周东平、薛夷风译，北京：中华书局，2023年。
8 日］池田温：《律令法》，徐世虹译，见杨一凡、寺田浩明主编：《日本学者中国法制史论著选·先秦秦汉卷》，北京：中华书局，2016年，第85-128页。
9 张建国：《中国律令法体系概论》，《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》1998年第5期，第93-99页。
10 范忠信、尤陈俊、翟文喆编校：《中国文化与中国法系——陈顾远法律史论集》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2006年。
11 俞荣根：《走出“律令体制”——重新认识中华法系》，《兰州大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第4期，第116-123页。
12 钱穆：《国学概论》，北京：商务印书馆，1997年。
13 柳诒徵：《中国文化史》上册，北京：中华书局，2015年。
14 许纪霖、宋宏编：《史华慈论中国》，北京：新星出版社，2006年。
15 秦晖：《西儒会融，解构“法道互补”——典籍与行为中的文化史悖论及中国现代化之路》，见哈佛燕京学社主编：《儒家传统与启蒙心态》，南京：江苏教育出版社，2005年，第94-162页。
16 张建国：《中国法系的形成与发达》，北京：北京大学出版社，1997年。
17 陈寅恪：《隋唐制度渊源略论稿·唐代政治史述论稿》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2015年。
18 日］奥村郁三：《〈大唐六典〉研究》，郑显文译，见杨一凡、寺田浩明主编：《日本学者中国法制史论著选·魏晋隋唐卷》，北京：中华书局，2016年，第279-298页。
19 王帅一：《“无法”之讼：传统中国国家治理体系中的田土细故》，《学术月刊》2019年第12期，第106-120页。
20 郭卫：《中国的法律思想及其制度》，见方潇主编：《东吴法学先贤文录·法律史卷》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2015年，第1-11页。
21 陈来：《中华文明的核心价值：国学流变与传统价值观》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2015年。
22 黄宗智：《中国古今的民、刑事正义体系——全球视野下的中华法系》，《法学家》2016年第1期，第1-27页。
23 梁漱溟：《东西文化及其哲学》，北京：中华书局，2013年。
24 苏亦工：《天下归仁：儒家文化与法》，北京：人民出版社，2015年。
25 杜维明：《文化中国：扎根本土的全球思维》，北京：北京大学出版社，2016年。
26 吕思勉：《中国政治思想史》，北京：中华书局，2016年。
27 王帅一：《明清时代官方对于契约的干预：通过“税契”方式的介入》，《中外法学》2012年第6期，第1278-1291页。
28 马小红：《中华法系中“礼”“律”关系之辨正——质疑中国法律史研究中的某些“定论”》，《法学研究》2014年第1期，第171-189页。
29 日］工藤元男：《睡虎地秦简所见秦代国家与社会》，广濑薰雄、曹峰译，上海：上海古籍出版社，2018年。
30 黄宗智：《清代以来民事法律的表达与实践：历史、理论与现实》卷一，北京：法律出版社，2014年。
31 黄右昌：《罗马法与现代》，丁玫勘校，北京：北京大学出版社，2008年。
32 赖骏楠：《清代的地权习惯与法律介入———国家与市场的互动视角》，《法学研究》2024年第5期，第187-203页。
33 马勇：《重寻近代中国》，北京：线装书局，2014年。
34 钱穆：《中国文化精神》，北京：九州出版社，2012年。
35 陈朝璧：《中华法系特点初探》，《法学研究》1980年第1期，第48-53页。
36 许倬云：《万古江河：中国历史文化的转折与开展》，长沙：湖南人民出版社，2017年。
37 陈顾远：《中国法制史概要》，北京：商务印书馆，2011年。
38 曹伯韩：《国学常识》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2008年。
39 陆鼎揆：《判例与大陆法系》，见孙莉主编：《东吴法学先贤文录·法理学卷》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2015年，第110-116页。
40 杨兆龙：《大陆法与英美法的区别究竟在哪里？》，见孙莉主编：《东吴法学先贤文录·法理学卷》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2015年，第63-99页。
41 日］渡边英幸：《古代中华观念的形成》，吴昊阳译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2024年。
42 章太炎：《国学概论》，曹聚仁整理，北京：中华书局，2009年。
43 苏亦工：《明清律典与条例》，北京：商务印书馆，2020年。
44 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译：《共产党宣言》，北京：人民出版社，2018年。
45 美］塞缪尔·亨廷顿：《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》（修订版），周琪、刘绯、张立平等译，北京：新华出版社，2010年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
