《民法总则》的公因式元素与民法典分则各编草案

The Common Factors of The General Principles of the Civil Law and the Drafts of the General Parts of the Civil Code

我国民法典先编纂民法典总则再编纂分则各编的二阶段立法的政治策略,确定了《民法总则》形成对民法典分编的共识。公因式因素应是编纂民法典分则各编的基本依据和指导内容,也是确定民法典分则各编结构的前提。这是我国民法典编纂体例科学的基本要求。《民法总则》之后各分编不宜为"法典化的民事单行法律"。遵循《民法总则》公因式因素构建民法典分则各编的基本进路,需要以"民事权利"—"民事责任"的公因式逻辑构建分编逻辑体系,以《民法总则》"民事权利"公因式条款确定民法典分则各编的基本内容,以体系性权利与结构性权利区分确定分编的体系结构。公因式的提取对现有各分编之体系与内容皆有影响:人格权编、婚姻家庭编、继承编应当在《民法总则》的基础上进一步具体化,体现民法典人文主义的定位。而分则草案并没有体现这一结构功能。在不制定债法总则的立法进路下,合同编总则应运用一定的立法技术承担"准债法总则"的功能;物权编不宜设置总则;知识产权编须从民法典体系的整体视角处理与民法典的关系。侵权责任编应摈弃传统侵权责任等同于债法特性的思维定式,以责任为中心构建侵权责任编的体系以及坚持权利救济的立法定位。民法典分则各编草案的相关规定存在立法上的疏漏,需要进行更正。

A two-step political strategy is adopted to draft the general rules of the Civil Code first, and then the individual parts of the Civil Code, which established the consensus on the formation of the Civil Code.The common factors should be the basic content for the compilation of the general rules of the Civil Code, and it is also the premise for determining the structure of the Civil Code. This is the basic requirement for the compilation of the Chinese Civil Code. After compiling the General Principles of Civil Law, the individual parts should not be as the "single-line law". In accordance with the common factors of The General Principles of Civil Law, the basic approach to the compilation of the Civil Code’s sub-rules requires the construction of a logical system of divisions by the "civil rights"-"civil liability", and the "civil rights" in The General Principles of Civil Law. The common factor clause determines the basic content of The general parts of the Civil Code, and the structure of the general parts is determined by the distinction between systemic rights and structural rights. The extraction of common factors has an impact on the existing system and content of each parts: personality rights, marriage and family, and inheritance, which should be further embodied on the basis of The General Principles of Civil Law to reflect the humanism. The draft does not reflect this structural function. Under the legislative approach that does not enact the general rules of the obligation law, the law of contract should use certain legislative techniques to assume the function of the "general rules of the obligation law". The general rules of property rights should not be set up and the intellectual property rights must be handled from the overall perspective of the civil code system. The tort liability should not be equal to the characteristics of the obligation law, and the system of tort liability should be built with responsibility and insistance on the relief of the rights. There are legislative omissions in the relevant provisions of the drafts of the Civil Code which needed to be corrected.