论文部分内容阅读
关于“法律行为”的问题在我国法学界尚未深入展开,重要的原因在于:第一,它已经是一个约定俗成的概念,涉及太广太多,所以即使觉察到有问题也不愿意展开去讨论。第二,没有语境或讨论的学术环境,大多数学者对于“法律行为”的来龙去脉虽然有些了解,但对于其究竟,对其在输入过程中的信息缺失没有清楚了解的渠道,故也不能参与讨论。在此,我们推出一篇由柯伟才节译自日本学者平井宜雄的,专门探究“法律行为”在日本出现的文章。我们可以发现,历史是何曾相似!日本法学界曾经有过的问题和困惑,一百多年后原原本本地又在中国法学界发生。这篇文章虽然较为粗线条,似乎有些未尽之处,但至少给我们提供了一些重要的线索和启示,可能有助于我们今天客观正确地面对应该面对的问题。所幸之是,我们的民法典还没有制定,学界的讨论或许对立法者还有些启发意义。不过,在官商学高度一体化的今天,学界的讨论是否还属于学术,这的确也是不能把握的事情。像日本当时那样莫名其妙地进入立法,不是没有可能。
The important reason why the “legal act” has not been carried out in depth in China’s jurisprudence lies in the following aspects. First, it is a conventionally accepted concept that involves too much too much and therefore is not willing to expand even if it perceives a problem discuss. Second, although there are no contexts or academic contexts for discussion, most scholars have some understanding of the historical context of legal acts, but they do not have a clear understanding of the missing information in the input process. Can not participate in the discussion. Here, we launch an article that was translated by Ke Wei-cai from Japanese scholars Hirohito Hirohito and appeared in Japan specifically to explore “legal acts.” We can see that history has been similar! The problems and puzzles that the Japanese law circle once had had occurred more than a hundred years ago in the Chinese legal circle. Although this essay is a bit thicker, it seems that there are some unfinished articles, but at least it provides us with some important clues and enlightenments that may help us face objectively and properly the problems we should face today. Fortunately, our civil code has not been formulated yet, and academic discussions may be of some enlightenment to legislators. However, at a time of a high degree of integration of government and commerce, whether academic discussion is academic or not is indeed something that can not be grasped. It is not impossible to enter the law inexplicably as Japan did at that time.