“历史”的危机与“意义”的重生——法律解释中的历史方法(因素)

随着后现代法学的兴起,法律解释的客观性、法律的确定性等受到了挑战,“客观”的历史也以视域融合的方式在理解中被“遗忘”。在弘扬法治的前提下,应当强调在法律解释过程中不能忽略历史解释方法(因素)的意义。历史解释方法是一种辅助性的法律解释方法,但是它也是不容忽视的方法。

“虚伪”无须“通谋”:《民法典》第146条适用要件的历史解释视角——兼论德国法上“通谋虚伪表示”与中国法上“虚假意思表示”的异质

民法学界已达成共识,后《民法典》时代为解释时代,法典条文的适用要件是法释义学争论的核心之一。《民法典》第146条确立了“虚假意思表示规则”,目前主流解释为德国民法上的“通谋虚伪表示”。此解释路径关注形式逻辑的规范表达,而非权益保护的裁判实操。由此带来三个方面的难题:其一,在解释路径上,不符合我国的历史认知。其二,在逻辑结构上,不能涵摄单方虚伪表示与避法行为。其三,在司法审查上,实操性将面临很大的压力。《德国民法典》将虚伪表示分为真意保留、戏谑行为与通谋虚伪,分别规定于第116条、第118条、第117条,在行为规制上形成逻辑闭合。在我国原《民法总则》的制定中,立法者有意将“单方虚伪表示”条款与“串通”二字同时删去,条文设置与规制结构与德国法已大有不同,不能机械照搬“通谋虚伪表示”的学理解释。承接中国法上的“以合法形式掩盖非法目的”,遵循历史解释方法,将“虚假意思表示规则”解释为“以合法形式掩盖非法目的”的正向进化,对该条款的适用不以“通谋”为必要要件,上述难题将迎刃而解。好的解释方法应以建构减轻论证负担的法释义学为进路。

当代“两户”民事主体地位的历史解释与未来因应

“两户”是极具中国特色的民事主体,学界对其存废问题一直争议不断。从历史维度来看,“户”作为法律主体的时间长达两千余年之久,具有强大的历史惯性。当代“两户”自下而上的成功,是生活单位“家”向生产经营单位“户”自然转换的结果,其根源在于家庭成员对于整体之家的生存和情感依赖。“两户”存废论争的产生,是整体之家与家庭成员权利义务不够清晰的产物。但基于深厚的传统文化土壤,短期内实现这种清晰界分还是不可能完成的任务,应尊重社会自然进化的规律而非以法律将二者强行撕裂开来。在当前仍有较大社会需求而法律未能提供充分制度供给之前,不宜轻易废弃“两户”的民事主体地位,而应围绕主体范围等对其加以优化,发展完善具有中国特色的民事主体制度。

《史记》与《诗》学传统

诗性气质是《史记》的重要特征之一,汉初诗歌理论的发展深刻地影响了《史记》的创作。“诗言志”的诗歌认识,“以意逆志”与“论世知人”的诗歌解释,“怨”、“美刺”、“连类”等诗歌理论,在《史记》的创作中产生了重要的影响。由于深厚的诗学背景的影响,司马迁在《史记》的著述中自觉地运用了诗性的思维和诗性的语法重新解释历史,确立了以人为中心的纪传体史学,所以《史记》被鲁迅称为“史家之绝唱,无韵之《离骚》”。

Study of the methodologies in the researches on the legal history

The subject of the legal history belongs to the interdisciplinary of the law and the history. Because of the attribute of the interdisciplinary of the subject of the legal history, the reference of the experience in the development of the h/story is very important. The subject of the legal history must pay attention to the problems encountered in the process of the development of the history and the accumulated experience. The historical development since the last century displays the importance and necessity of the theory of the social science in the study of the history. The researcher of the legal history should focus on the comprehensive use of the theories and methods of the subject of the social sciences, and through the innovative use of the historical data and the use of the multidisciplinary interpretation methods, re-interpret the historical events and figures. With the aid of the comprehensive use of the methods of the multiple disciplines, further open the new situation of the study of the legal history.

Historical Timber-Framed Buildings： Typology and Knowledge

This paperprovides a historical overview intending to clarify the methods of interpretation of timber-framed buildings by different authors of construction treatises, and structural intentions of the carpentry designers and master builders, throughout the centuries, until the period when it became scientific structural theory. It describes the ＂box-frame＂ construction that appeared in Lisbon, after the earthquake of 1755, characterized by its good seismic resistance. This knowledge is important to determine a strategy of an efficient restoration practice in historical constructions which require an intervention subordinated to its raised patrimonial and artistic value, minimum, which respects the authenticity of its structural and construction conception and which is reversible and compatible, in physical, chemical, mechanic and aesthetic terms. Empirical understanding of the most important properties of wood to structure purposes, the defects of structural timbers, the framing and the preliminary survey followed by the structural survey were some of the difficulties which can be overcame in practice.