为法教义学辩护:兼评中德两国类似遗赠继承案

In Defense of Doctrinal Jurisprudence:Comments on Similar Bequest Succession Cases in China and Germany

法教义学自传入中国以来受到了来自社科法学派的批评。批评的观点认为,一方面,法教义学方法只关注规范意义上的法而忽视社会中的法,缺乏应有的价值判断,所以无法应对疑难案件;另一方面,法教义学带有天然的德国印记,是继受法学的体现,无法解决中国问题。然而,从中德两国类似遗赠继承案的比较分析可知,法教义学并不排斥价值判断。相反,价值判断促进规则与教义的更新,而且社科法学所强调的“后果考量”也必须以教义和规则为边界。法教义学虽然来源于德国,但其并非简单的机械移植,而是可以扎根于中国的司法实践并生生不息。从法教义学和社科法学两种不同视角的研究旨趣上看,法教义学必然是法学研究的核心,但社科法学也可以为法教义学提供智识资源,并可弥补法教义学研究方法上的不足。未来法学本土化探索需采用教义法学为体,社科法学为用的思路。

Doctrinal jurisprudence has been criticized from school of social science law since it was introduced into China.According to the critical point of view,on the one hand,the method of doctrinal jurisprudence only focuses on law in the normative sense,neglecting law in the society,and also lacks the due value judgment,so it cannot be dealt with difficult cases.On the other hand,doctrinal jurisprudence embodies successor jurisprudence with a natural German mark,which cannot be used to solve problems in China.However,from the comparative analysis of similar bequest succession cases in China and Germany,we can see that doctrinal jurisprudence does not exclude value judgment.On the contrary,value judgment promotes the renewal of rules and doctrines,and the“consideration of consequences”emphasized by social science law must be bounded by doctrines and rules.Although doctrinal jurisprudence originated from Germany,it is not a simple mechanical transplant,instead,it can be rooted in China’s judicial practice and grow endlessly.From the research purposes of doctrinal jurisprudence and social science law,doctrinal jurisprudence is the core of legal research,but social science law can also provide intellectual resources for doctrinal jurisprudence,and make up for some shortcomings of research methods of doctrinal jurisprudence.The future localization of legal studies should be based on thinking with doctrinal jurisprudence as main body,supplemented by social science law.