论民法典编纂中债法总则的存废——以德国潘德克顿法学的法源思想与体系构造方法为视角

On the Existence or Abolition of General Rules of Obligation Law of Civil Code: From the Perspective of the Thought of Legal Source and the Method of System Construction of German Pandect Law

总分则式的民法典体例的出现与德国潘德克顿法学的法源理论和方法论有着密切关系,以萨维尼为首的德国法学家们坚信法学应当是一门科学,追求逻辑意义上的整全法源,采用提取"公因式"的方法抽象出总则和各分则中的"小总则",构造出逻辑自洽、具有高度涵括性的规则体系。此种法典体例下,债法总则的存废不是一个单纯的技术问题,而是关系到民法典科学性的结构性问题。我国民法典分则草案不设债法总则对民法典的体系效益和科学性都会造成消极影响:一是法典的体系逻辑被破坏。诸分则与总则之间层层递归、相互嵌套的体系逻辑被打乱,法典结构关系变得松散;二是合同法总则立法的科学性和严谨性存在缺陷。不使用债的概念使得合同的履行、保全、变更和转让等等术语在语义和逻辑上都存在问题;三是物权请求权和法定之债需大量参照适用合同总则的规则可能导致参照的泛滥。从现有司法裁判的实证研究看,这可能导致司法适用的混乱和司法裁判的不确定性增加。

The appearance of the Civil Code closely relates to legal source theory and methodology of German Pandect jurisprudence.The German jurists,led by Savigny,firmly believe that law should be a science,logically and wholly pursuing source of law.It adopts the method of extracting polynomials to abstract“small general principles”between general rules and specific rules and constructs a consistently logical and highly general rule system.Based on the code,existence or abolition of general rules of Obligation Law is not a simply technical problem,but a structural problem relating to scientificity of Civil Code.Absence of general rules of Obligation Law of Civil Code has a negative effect on the systematic benefits and scientificity:Firstly,systematic logic of the code is destroyed.Progressive and mutually integrating logic between general and specific rules is disturbed,and structural relationship of the code becomes looser;Secondly,scientificity and preciseness of the legislation of general rules of Contract Law is defective.The non-use of concept of debt makes performances,guarantees,alterations and assignments of contracts remains defective semantically and logically;Thirdly,claim of real right as well as legal debt’s excessive reference to application of general rules of contract may lead to the flooding reference.From the current empirical study of judicial adjudication,this may lead to the confusion of judicial application and increase of the uncertainty of judicial adjudication.