知识产权法典化论证质评

A Critique on the Doctrines Concerning the Codification of Intellectual Property Law

在中国知识产权的立法进程中,存在“特别立法”、“单独法典”和“作为民法典的一篇”三种模式,它们基本上沿袭了世界上既有的知识产权三种立法模式。在理论界,多数学者指出,知识产权的法典化是历史发展的必然趋势。在方法论上他们多数采用的是比较、逻辑的进路;在知识资源上多数依赖的是比较法和历史史实的支撑。法典化论者有关制定知识产权法典的论证是不充分的。在中国语境下,与“特别立法”模式相比,“法典化”具有一种比较优势;但它不具有现实性。比较说来,中国当前应当制定一部《知识产权法通则》。

In the Chinese history of legislation, intellectual property law usually＇ comes into being as a “special legislation,” a “separate code”and “one part in a civil code,” which, to some extent, can be said to follow the suit of the three legislation models popular in the world. In logic, many scholars hold that the codification of intellectual property law is inevitable in the development of the history. They usually resort to comparisons or logics to advance their arguments and rely on comparative law and historical facts to do their research. However, the arguments of those who advocate codification are not convincing. In China＇ s context, codification is comparatively superior to “special legislation,” but it is not practical in this author＇ s opinion. A statute like the General Rules of Intellectual Property Law may be the most appropriate law for China for the time being.