德国民法典对美国法的影响

德国和美国分别属于大陆法和普通法国家,两国法律制度差别甚巨。在民法方面,德国民法典是否以及在多大程度上影响了美国法,是本文的主要话题。作者指出,本质上为判例法的普通法或许具有某些与法典编纂不相容的特性。然而美国在19世纪也曾有过法典编纂的不成功的努力,20世纪的美国《统一商法典》作为自成一类的法典编纂,也因其主要起草人熟谙德国法的缘故而可能受到了德国法的启示。作者还从法哲学的角度分析了德国民法典的概念技术在美国法的应用,透过二者异曲同工之处看到了前者对后者一定程度的影响。尽管美国没有包罗万象的抽象化、体系化的民法典,却接受了德国的潘德克吞方法。最后,作者再度指出,普通法或许具有某些与法典化和抽象化不相容的特性,且由于美国法律文化的本性,很难全盘接受德国民法典的方法;相反,今日之德国法却受到了美国法的影响。

German law’s tradition is civil law,whereas that of United States is common law.There are many differences between the legal systems of them.The main topic of the present article is whether and to what extent BGB has influenced US law in the aspect of civil law.The author points out that common law,which in essence is judge-made law,probably has some peculiarities which are incompatible to codification.Nevertheless there were in fact failed attempts to codify US private law in the 19th century.And the American Unified Commercial Code of the 20th century,as a codification suis generis,had probably inspirations from BGB due to the familiarity with German law of its principal draftsman.The author also analyses the application of the concept technique of BGB in US law,and finds certain influences of BGB on US law through the common characteristics of the two.Although there are not comprehensive,abstract and systemised codes in the United States,American jurists have adopted the German Pandectist method.Finally,the author points out once more that common law has probably some special characteristics,which are incompatible to codification and abstractness.What’s more,because of the nature of American legal culture,it might be difficult to adopt completely the method of BGB in the United States.On the contrary,German law has been influenced by US law,today.