论文部分内容阅读
20世纪50年代,一些美国法学家提出综合法学,他们主张融合主流法学派的研究方法和思想,形成一个综合性的观点。但是主张综合法学的法学家们对综合法学的理解并不相同,此后发表的许多以综合法学为题目的论文所讨论的内容也各异,并未形成一个学派。上世纪90年代以来,大量中文法理学和法律思想史著作着重介绍了综合法学,亦有不少台湾地区学者更早在方法论意义上提出自己的综合法学主张。事实上,英文法学界的综合法学是一种没有新方法和观点、内容不统一的法学思潮,在西方影响极为微弱。中国学者对综合法学的重视在很大程度上是个误会。
In the 1950s, some American jurists proposed comprehensive jurisprudence. They advocated the integration of the research methods and ideas of the mainstream legal school to form a comprehensive view. However, jurists who advocate comprehensive law differ in their understanding of general jurisprudence. Many of the articles published afterwards on the topic of comprehensive law also have different contents and do not form a school of thought. Since the 90s of the last century, a large number of Chinese jurisprudence and legal history books have focused on comprehensive jurisprudence, and many Taiwanese scholars have put forward their own comprehensive legal claim earlier in the methodology. In fact, the law of integrated jurisprudence in English jurisprudence is a kind of jurisprudence that has no new method and viewpoints and is not unified in content. It has a very weak influence in the West. Chinese scholars’ attention to comprehensive law is to a large extent a misunderstanding.