质疑民法典起草中的“新人文主义”——评徐国栋《两种民法典起草思路:新人文主义对物文主义》

Questioning "New Humanism" Reflected in the Drafting of Civil Laws

文章对民法典编纂中的"新人文主义"思路提出三点商榷。第一,我国民法主要调整私人间的财产关系,有其特定的历史背景,也是私法自治的必然要求,并为民法的调整手段所决定。第二,"新人文主义"虽然批判德国民法典的编制法,但无法取消其优势:如设立总则,区分债权和物权,亲属和继承独立为两编,以法律关系为张本,统帅总则与分则各编,足可以简御繁。第三,"新人文主义"将人法、物法的二分法作为人文主义民法的唯一表现形式,将人法、物法与笛卡尔"哲学二元论"中的主观世界、客观世界一一对应,实在捍格难合。

This paper advances three issues： Firstly, the PRC civil code should mainly regulate the property relationships of individuals. This is determined by the historic development of civil law in the PRC, the principle of private autonomy and the regulating tools available in a civil code. Secondly, although the structure of the German Civil Code is criticized by ＂new humanism＂, yet its superiority cannot be eliminated. For instance, a civil code with separate parts for general principles, obligations and dingliche rights, relatives and succession, and with legal relationship as essential value is efficient and sufficient enough to cover the contents of a civil code, which should contribute to the good organization of the PRC Civil Code Thirdly, under the ＂new humanism＂ approach, a two - part structure, i.e. one part of Droit personnel and the other part of Droit real, is proposed, which is developed on the basis of the theory of dualism with Droit personnel as the subjective aspect and Droit real as the objective aspect. This application of philosophical conception to a civil code is a kind of oversimplification.