摘要
中国的法律史学缺乏对于规范性的深入思考,因而可能走向两个极端:其一,强行援用现代法教义学的方法来对前现代的法律加以分析;其二,规避规范性的讨论并退回到文史或社科的传统里面躲藏起来。因此,如何看待“事实与规范的二分”便成为法律史学需要面对的一个关键问题。在规范性的视野之下,法律史学的知识体系首先可以被理解为一个由“外部—内部”以及“一般—部门”的两重分化搭建起来的基本框架,其次可以被理解为一个包含着由微观而宏观渐次变化的六个层级所组成的知识谱系。缺乏对于这一基本框架的自觉意识,以及缺乏对于这一知识谱系中某些层级的必要关注,皆有可能导致中国的法律史学陷于分裂和封闭的状态。扭转这一被动局面的契机在于提升法律史学的认识论水平,特别是强调现代法学的规范性思维对于法律史学的重要意义。
The study of legal history in China suffers from a lack of deep engagement with normativity,which may lead it to two extremes:on one hand,anachronistically applying methodologies of modern legal dogmatics to analyze pre-modern law;on the other hand,avoiding discussions of normativity by retreating into the traditions of literature,historiography,or social sciences.Consequently,addressing the dichotomy between"facts and norms"becomes an essential issue for legal history studies.From the perspective of normativity,the knowledge system of legal history can initially be understood as a fundamental framework constructed through a dual differentiation of"externalinternal"and"generalsectoral"dimensions.Furthermore,it can be seen as comprising a spectrum of knowledge that includes six levels of analysis,ranging from micro to macro perspectives.A lack of awareness of this basic framework,as well as a deficiency in attention to certain levels within this knowledge spectrum,could potentially lead legal history studies in China into a state of fragmentation and isolation.The key to reversing this passive situation lies in enhancing the epistemological level of legal history studies in China,particularly by emphasizing the significance of normative thinking in modern jurisprudence for the study of legal history.
出处
《中外法学》
北大核心
2024年第3期746-763,共18页
Peking University Law Journal
关键词
法律史学
规范性
内部法史学
外部法史学
一般法史学
Legal History
Normativity
Internal Legal History
External Legal History
General Legal History
