学位级别：硕士
提交日期：2003年4月
答辩日期：2003年5月
论文中文题目：论当代中国法学研究的两种进路
论文英文题目：Two Approaches to Contemporary Chinese Law
作    者：蔡宏伟
所在单位：吉林大学法学院
指导教师：姚建宗
所在单位：吉林大学法学院
分类标识：DF082
中文主题标识：权利本位；本土资源  
英文主题标识：Right-orientation；Native resource
总页数：41

论文摘要

本文从学术史和思想史的角度，集中探讨了在当代中国权利法学的发展过程中发挥了重要推动作用的两个理论派别和理论形态，即权利本位论和本土资源论。本文试图通过对权利本位论和本土资源论的理论梳理和比较研究，完成对它们具体理论形态的勾画和检讨并探讨它们各自对当代中国权利法学的发展所做出的理论贡献，进而尝试性地前瞻当代中国权利法学的发展方向以及中国法学的出路。
本文在对权利本位论和本土资源论的具体研究当中，主要采取了理论研究和人物研究相结合、主要人物和次要人物相结合以及中西比较的研究方法。在对权利本位论和本土资源论展开比较分析之前，本文从历史观、权利观、现代与后现代、文明与文化四个方面做出了理论铺垫，并以此作为支撑全文的立论基础。具体言之，历史研究应该以人及人的生活实践为核心，法学史当然要以法学学者及他们的学术活动和学术成果为核心；在权利观念上，本文认为权利是比较现代的发明，权利与现代社会之间具有内在的一致性，权利具有独立自主性和个体主体间的平等性两个本质特征；此外，现代与后现代的分立、文明与文化的分立恰恰是权利本位论和本土资源论的分歧所在，因而关于现代与后现代、文明与文化的一般理解贯穿于权利本位论和本土资源论的比较分析之中。
在正文的本论部分，笔者试图通过对基本范畴的挖掘、核心观点的梳理以及哲学基础的探究，来勾画出权利本位论和本土资源论的具体面貌，进而通过比较分析探求出权利本位论和本土资源论的异中之同和同中之异。
通过对权利本位论和本土资源论的比较分析，本文尝试性地归纳出它们的异中之同和同中之异。概括的说，异中之同主要体现在三个方面：1.共同的目标指向,即实现中国的法律现代化。2.共同的研究对象，即当下中国的现实生活尤其是法律生活。3.共同的理论来源，即西方的现代性理论尤其是西方的现代法学理论。同中之异也主要体现在三个方面：1.“文明”与“文化”的差异。权利本位论着眼于中国法治文明的建设；而本土资源论则着眼于中国法制文化的演进。2.“现代”与“后现代”的差异。权利本位论基本上以西方现代性理论为参照；而本土资源论则受到西方现代性理论和后现代思潮的双重影响。3.对当下中国的基本判断存在差异。权利本位论对当下中国的基本判断是：中国正在经历着由传统文明向现代文明的转型，处于过渡阶段。而本土资源论对当下中国的基本判断是：当前中国已基本完成了经济制度、政治结构和文化结构由传统文明向现代文明的转型，只是法制建设才刚刚开始。也许这最后一方面的差异是上述所有差异的根源所在。
应当说，对权利本位论和本土资源论的比较分析是全文的核心部分，本文的结论正是建立在这个基础之上的。笔者认为，探索“中国法学的出路”关键在于“当代中国权利法学”的最新发展，而发展“当代中国权利法学”应着重思考和解决以下问题：
    1.发展“当代中国权利法学”首先要思考的就是国情问题。权利本位论和本土资源论之所以做出不同的理论选择，正是由于他们在国情问题上的分歧。笔者认为权利本位论关于国情的判断基本上是正确的，即中国社会正处于由传统文明向现代文明转型的过渡阶段；而不是象本土资源论所认为的那样，当前中国已基本完成了经济制度、政治结构和文化结构由传统文明向现代文明的转型，只是法制建设才刚刚开始。本土资源论不仅对于国情的判断是错误的，而且对于法律功能的认识也是不完全的。他们过分依赖经济制度转型的成果，以至盲目乐观地认为中国社会的转型已基本完成；这是受到了庸俗的“经济决定论”的影响。岂不知社会转型是一个系统工程，这一转型的完成将有赖于各种社会因素的相互作用和共同发展。本土资源论过分强调了法律制度的消极滞后性，岂不知法律制度也可以成为一种积极的变革力量。只要人们有客观上的制度需求，政府就完全可以通过正式法律制度的建构来推动社会变革。当下的中国国情就是中国正处于由传统文明向现代文明转型的过渡阶段，其中最艰难的变革就是人的思想观念的变革，而法律制度正可在这种变革中发挥积极的推动作用。
   2.发展“当代中国权利法学”必须正视“秋菊的困惑”和“后现代的困惑”。我们必须清醒地认识到“秋菊的困惑”和“后现代的困惑”是两种不同性质的困惑。前者的困惑源于由传统文明向现代文明迈进的巨大心理落差，源于周围依旧是传统生存环境的外部压力；而后者的困惑则源于有关现代性的反思，源于对现代目标（人的主体性）的不懈追求。当代中国法学首先要解决的问题就是如何帮助亿万中国民众迅速摆脱“秋菊的困惑”；至于“后现代的困惑”并不是中国民众的问题更不是中国社会的现实问题，而充其量只是中国学者需要深长思之的问题。要想解决“秋菊的困惑”，也许最有效的办法就是政府主导和政府推进法律的现代化进程。这样做当然是有代价的；但如果不这样做，可能代价更大。
   3.发展“当代中国权利法学”必须要有敏锐的问题意识和高度的理论意识。“当代中国权利法学”必须思考这样的问题，如何确保政府主导和政府推进是有助于实现中国法律现代化的、是符合中国民众和中华民族的利益需求的。这也许是更为重要的问题。它要求“当代中国权利法学”的理论思考必须首先面向生活，要求法学学者具有常人意识；但同时理论思考又必须超越于现实生活、理论思维必须超越于常人思维。这就是说，问题来源于生活，但关于问题的理论思考又不可能是日常生活的简单描画，更不可能是常人思维的直接翻版，否则理论的意义何在、学者的价值何在？
    4.发展“当代中国权利法学”应当汲取权利本位论和本土资源论的得失，开辟出一条崭新的学术道路。我们姑且用张文显先生提出的“新现代法学”来称谓“当代中国权利法学”未来的发展形态。既是冠之以“新现代”，便是以“现代”为前提，同时又要求一种超越的眼光方能体现出其“新”在何处。以“现代”为前提，就是要求坚持以思考“法律现代化”为核心问题。“法律现代化”应当具有法治文明和法制文化的双重维度；也就是说，只有文化属性的法制适应了文明属性的法治的现代化要求才算真正实现了法律现代化。权利本位论和本土资源论分别在法治和法制两方面做出了卓有成效的学术研究。同时要想使“新现代法学”超越求“新”，就必须始终坚持法学研究从中国人民和中华民族的根本利益需要出发——中国人民的幸福追求和中华民族的伟大复兴，就必须始终坚持法学研究同广大人民的生活实践相结合。这便是“中国法学的出路”所在。

Abstract

From the perspective of legal science history and legal thought history, the thesis mainly discusses two theory schools or theoretical models, which play an important role in the research of contemporary Chinese right law, ie the theory of right-orientation and the theory of native resources. The thesis tempts to rearrange theoretically and research comparatively the above two theories to accomplish drawing and analyzing the theoretical models and to explore the contribution it made to the development of contemporary Chinese right law, so as to foresee the direction of contemporary Chinese right law and the way out to develop Chinese law.
During the process of the research of the two theories, the thesis mainly adopts the combination of theory research and character research, the combination of the main character and the minor character, and the method of the comparison of the Chinese law and western law. Before the analysis of the two theories, the thesis lays the theoretical foundation from the following four aspects, historical view, right view, modern and post-modern view, civilization and culture view, on the basis of which the thesis develops. In detail, the research of history should take living practice as the core. The history of law should take law scholars and their academic activities as the core. As for the concept of right the thesis holds the view that right is the modern invention, there is inner harmony between right and the modern society, right has two essential natures, ie independence and equality which refers to the equality of individuals. Besides the separation of the modernism and the post-modernism, the separation of civilization and culture are just the disagreement of the two theories, so the general understanding of the modernism and the post-modernism, of civilization and culture penetrates the comparison and the analysis of the two theories.      
In this thesis, the author tries to explore the basic categories, rearrange the core views and research for the philosophical basis in order to present the detailed content of the theory of right-orientation and the theory of native resources. Through the analyzing of the two theories, the author wants to find out the differences and the same of the two theories.
The thesis sums up the differences and the same of the two theories. The same is as follows 1. The common aim is to realize the modernization of the Chinese law. 2. The common research subject is the present daily life in china especially the legal life. 3. The common theoretical resources are western modern theory especially western modern legal theory. The differences are as follows 1. The differences between civilization and culture. The theory of right-orientation focuses on the construction of China’s legal civilization, while the theory of native resources focuses on the evolution of the China’s legal culture. 2. The differences between the modernism and the post-modernism. The former consults the western modern theory while the latter is influenced by the western modern theory and the post-modern thoughts. 3. The differences in their basic judgement of the present China. The former’s judgement is that China is undergoing the transformation from traditional civilization to the modern civilization. The latter’s judgement is that China has finished the transformation of economic system, political structure and cultural structure. The construction of legal system has just begun. Perhaps the last point is the root of the above differences.
We should say that the comparison and the analysis of the two theories are the core of this thesis, on the basis of which the thesis draws the conclusion. The author holds the view that exploring the direction of China’s law lies in the latest development of contemporary Chinese right law. To develop the contemporary Chinese right law, we should emphasize pondering on and solving the following questions:
1.Taking the present situation of Chinese society in to consideration is the first task when we want to develop the contemporary Chinese right law. The reason why the theory of right- orientation and the theory of native sources makes deferent theoretical choices is that their different views on the present Chinese situation. The author thinks that the theory of right- orientation’s judgement on present Chinese situation is right. Their opinion is that China is taking the transformation from traditional civilization to modern civilization, which is different from the theory of native resources’ opinion that Chinese economic system, political structure and cultural structure have finished the transformation from traditional civilization to modern civilization, the construction of China’s legal system has just begun. The theory of native resources makes wrong judgement on the present Chinese situation, besides they fail to get a complete understanding of the function of law. They rely excessively on the achievement of the economic transformation resulting in the blind conclusion that China has finished the social transformation. Such an opinion take the influence of the commonplace theory of economy decision. They can not realize that the social transformation is a systematic project, which is determined by the interaction and development of various social factors. The theory of native resources lays excessive stress on the passive backwardness of the law without realizing that law may also turn into an active reform force. So long as people have the objective requirements for the rules and regulations, the government can impel the social reform through formal legal system construction. China is undergoing the transformation from traditional civilization to modern civilization. How to transform people’s thoughts and ideas is the most painstaking task in this stage. Legal system is able to play an active and impelling role in the transform.
To develop contemporary Chinese right law we must deal with the puzzle of Qiu Ju and the puzzle of the post-modernism. We have to realize fully that these two puzzles are two quite different puzzles. The former originates from the great mentality fall people have during the transformation from traditional civilization to modern civilization as well as the outside press that we are still surrendered by the traditional environment. The latter originates from the pondering on the modernism and the consistent pursuit for the modern aim. The first and foremost thing for contemporary Chinese right law to solve is how to help Chinese get rid of the puzzle of Qiu Ju. The puzzle of the post-modernism is not the problem Chinese faces nor the problem Chinese society faces. It is the problem our Chinese scholars need to think over at the most. The most efficient way to solve the puzzle of Qiu Ju is that government takes the lead and impels the modernization of law. It is a valuable way. We will have to pay more if we do not do so.
To develop contemporary Chinese right law we must have the sharp consciousness of problem and the high consciousness of theory. How to insure that the leading and the impelling role of the government is beneficial to realize the legal modernization and be in accordance to the interest of the Chinese and the nation is the problem contemporary Chinese right law must think over. This is perhaps a more important problem. It requires the contemporary Chinese right law must face the daily life and the law scholars must keep the consciousness of the common people. At the same time, the theoretical thinking must surpass the real life, surpass the ordinary thinking. That is to say, problem comes from life, while the theoretical thinking is not the simple description of daily life nor the copy of the common thinking. Otherwise, where does the theoretical significance lie in? Where does the value of the scholars lie in?
To develop contemporary Chinese right law, we ought to take lessons from the losses and gains of the theory of right-orientation and the theory of native resources to pave a new academic path. We make use of the advocacy of Mr. Zhang wenxian’s new modern law to name the future development state of contemporary Chinese right law. New modern law should be built on the basis of modern law, at the same time we can display the new nature with the exceeding insight. It needs us to take the thinking of legal modernization as the core. The legal modernization should have the double characters of legal civilization and legal culture. In another words, only when the cultural legal system suits the legal modernization can we realize the true legal modernization. The theory of right-orientation and the theory of native resources make fruitful studies in the fields of legal ruling and legal system. To surpass the new nature, the new modern law has to stick to the principle, the legal research must serve the fundamental interest of the Chinese people and the nation. We must integrate the legal research and the living practice of the people to fulfill the Chinese people’s pursuit of happiness and the revival of the nation. This is the way out of Chinese law.