新法抑或旧法:法律修改后未变更条款属性之辩

New Law or Old Law:Debate on the Attribute of Unchanged Terms After Legal Modification

2020年初抗击新冠肺炎期间,有学者就2007年《突发事件应对法》同《传染病防治法》(2013年修正)之间“新的一般规定与旧的特别规定”的冲突提请全国人大常委会裁决,其背后是法律修改中的未变更条款究竟属于新法还是旧法的争议。其实,未修改条款与修改条款一并构成了新的法律框架,但从效力、内容和功能上看,并非如有观点主张的基于“修改法律的决定具有一部完整新法的属性”,而是修改条款的更新效应体系性外溢的结果。这种外溢在法律修改的理论、原则、程序和技术上均能获得充分论证。不过,即使证立了《传染病防治法》“新的特别规定”身份,仍不宜直接机械地适用《立法法》第103条的冲突规范,而应突破条款间零和博弈的简单思维,充分结合两部法律各自的目标、功能和规范语境,由全国人大常委会依据《立法法》第48条第2款第2项行使法律解释权,以科学回应法治实践的多样化需求。

During the fight against COVID-19 in early 2020,some scholars raised the issue of the conflict between the 2007 Emergency Response Law and the Infectious Diseases Prevention and Treatment Law enacted in 1989 and revised in 2013.Behind the NPC Standing Committee's ruling is the dispute over whether the unchanged provisions in the legal revision belong to the new law or the old law.In fact,the unamended clauses and the revised clauses together consti-tute a new legal framework.However,in terms of effectiveness,content and function,it is not based on"the decision to amend the law has the attributes of a complete new law"as some people claim,but rather the result of systemic spillover of the update effect of modified provi-sions.This kind of spillover can be fully demonstrated in the theory,principles,procedures and techniques of legal revision.However,even if the"New Special Provisions"status of the In-fectious Diseases Prevention and Treatment Law is established,it is still not appropriate to di-rectly and mechanically apply the conflict norms in Article 103 of the Legislation Law.Instead,we should break through the simple thinking of zero-sum game between the provisions and fully Combining the respective objectives,functions and normative contexts of the two laws,the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall exercise the power of legal interpre-tation in accordance with Article 48,paragraph 2,item 2,of the Legislation Law to scientifi-cally respond to the diverse needs of anti-epidemic work practice.