本文選題：《唐律疏議》 + 《學(xué)說匯纂》��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：中華法系與羅馬法系是世界公認(rèn)的最主要法系，也代表著當(dāng)時(shí)東西方法律文化的主要傳統(tǒng)。在漫長(zhǎng)的法律文化進(jìn)化中，各有自己的發(fā)展頂峰。《唐律疏議》是中國(guó)封建專制主義法律制度完備化的基本標(biāo)志，是中華法系的典型代表，在中國(guó)法制史上居于重要的地位。《學(xué)說匯纂》是羅馬法系的代表性著作，恩格斯對(duì)羅馬法曾給予高度的評(píng)價(jià)，稱贊羅馬法是“十分經(jīng)典性的法學(xué)表現(xiàn)”。資產(chǎn)階級(jí)法學(xué)家更是把羅馬法奉為制定民法的準(zhǔn)則，譽(yù)為世界性的“普通法”。兩部法典在古代東西方有著舉足輕重的位置，而對(duì)兩部巨著進(jìn)行比較研究，意義更為深遠(yuǎn)。不僅可以探究具體法律制度的細(xì)微差別和當(dāng)時(shí)立法者的立法意圖，而且在研究引起差別化的原因上會(huì)有更多的收獲，這也是從一個(gè)具體規(guī)范層面研究中西刑法制度與文化的切入點(diǎn)，以小見大。但兩大法系的側(cè)重點(diǎn)不同，中華法系的特點(diǎn)之一是“出禮入刑”，禮刑結(jié)合，法典的刑法化色彩特別濃厚，《唐律疏議》便是一部標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的刑法典。與此相反，羅馬法作為古代成文法中最發(fā)達(dá)的法律制度之一，其中最為完備、對(duì)后世影響最大的是民法部分。刑法在整個(gè)體系中所占的比重很小，而且法典中很多刑事內(nèi)容的規(guī)定被民法化了，產(chǎn)生這種狀況有復(fù)雜的原因。以往學(xué)者對(duì)比研究的方向大多側(cè)重于羅馬的私法部分，對(duì)公法的對(duì)比研究甚少。《唐律疏議》和羅馬法在刑法文化方面進(jìn)行比較研究，可以深入探究中西刑法文化的差異性，對(duì)東西方刑法文化的產(chǎn)生、發(fā)展及對(duì)現(xiàn)在的影響有更深入的了解。 中西傳統(tǒng)法律文化的比較研究，可以讓我們對(duì)東西方傳統(tǒng)法律文化有更深入的理解，中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)法律的刑事性并不表明中國(guó)文化是落后的，它只是從一個(gè)側(cè)面透視出這種文化的公法性和國(guó)家政治性。相對(duì)于西方法律文化中極其發(fā)達(dá)的私法傳統(tǒng)，也仍有刑事法律的存在。中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)刑法很發(fā)達(dá)，羅馬法刑法不發(fā)達(dá)，這背后的影響因素與制度設(shè)計(jì)所揭示的東西，，才是我們需要認(rèn)真反思的。中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)刑法文化發(fā)達(dá)，也映襯了私法的發(fā)育不良，而這恰恰是西方法律中最豐富的部分，傳統(tǒng)法律文化中我們所缺乏的，或許西方法律文化發(fā)達(dá)的部分可供我們借鑒與參考。 本文以殺傷罪這樣一個(gè)具體的刑法規(guī)范為視角對(duì)《唐律疏議》與羅馬法進(jìn)行微觀層面的比較，試圖突破以往在宏觀層面對(duì)中西法律文化比較的模式，運(yùn)用現(xiàn)代刑法學(xué)的概念、體系和比較研究的方法解析殺傷罪。具體運(yùn)用現(xiàn)代刑法的犯罪論、責(zé)任論、刑罰論的模式對(duì)殺傷罪進(jìn)行比較，考慮到刑法在兩大法系所占比重的差異，本文重點(diǎn)比較兩者在刑法上都發(fā)達(dá)的方面，沒有面面俱到，這樣做也不可能。 綜觀整個(gè)比較研究過程，《唐律疏議》與羅馬法都各具特色，以現(xiàn)代的眼光觀察過往的法律，我們不能得出這部典籍全面性的優(yōu)越于另一部，更何況兩部典籍是在刑法比重嚴(yán)重不對(duì)等的情況下進(jìn)行的比較。只能說它們各自在某一方面的規(guī)定由于復(fù)雜的原因，對(duì)以后的法律產(chǎn)生影響并不斷的趨向于現(xiàn)代性與科學(xué)性，更具有法律理性�！短坡墒枳h》與羅馬法都是東西方法制的頂峰，這得益于此前漫長(zhǎng)歲月中法律的不斷演進(jìn)與經(jīng)驗(yàn)的寶貴積累，因?yàn)闅v史的演進(jìn)亦是經(jīng)驗(yàn)、智慧、知識(shí)豐富與積聚的過程，它們受惠于經(jīng)驗(yàn)，因而看的遠(yuǎn)一點(diǎn)。法律的生命在于經(jīng)驗(yàn)，而不是邏輯。 論文在現(xiàn)有研究的基礎(chǔ)上，第一，借鑒現(xiàn)代刑法學(xué)比較研究的方法，對(duì)兩大法系傳統(tǒng)刑法制度中的具體法律規(guī)范進(jìn)行比較研究，由具體規(guī)則的對(duì)比上升到思想文化層面，打破以往只在宏觀文化層面上的解讀。第二，在堅(jiān)持具體制度上進(jìn)行比較為主的同時(shí)，進(jìn)行多層面的反思。 依據(jù)論文主題研究的需要，論文綜合使用了語義分析方法、比較分析方法、微觀分析方法以及例證研究方法。
[Abstract]:The Chinese law system and the Rome law system are the most commonly recognized legal systems in the world. They also represent the main tradition of the legal culture of the East and the west at that time. In the long evolution of the legal culture, they have their own development peaks. In the history of the system, the compilation of the "doctrine" is a representative work of the Rome law system. Engels praised the law of Rome highly and praised the Rome law as a "very classic legal representation". The bourgeois jurists regarded the law of Rome as the criterion for the formulation of civil law and called the "common law" of the world. The two codes were in ancient times. The East and the West have an important position, and the comparative study of the two monumental works is more profound. It can not only explore the subtle differences in the specific legal system and the legislative intent of the legislator at that time, but also gain more gains in the study of the causes of differentiation. This is also a study of the Chinese and western criminal law from a specific standard. The key points of the system and culture are small. But the emphasis of the two legal systems is different. One of the characteristics of the Chinese law system is "ritual entry into punishment", the combination of ritual and punishment, the criminal law of the code of law is particularly strong, and the "Tang law" is a standard criminal code. On the contrary, the Rome law is one of the most developed legal systems of the ancient written law, The most complete in the future is the civil law. The proportion of the criminal law in the whole system is very small, and the provisions of many criminal contents in the code are civil law, and there are complicated reasons for this situation. The past scholars' comparative research focuses on the private law part of Roma, and the comparative study of public law is very small. The comparative study of Tang law and Rome law in criminal law culture can deeply explore the differences between Chinese and western criminal law culture, and have a deeper understanding of the emergence and development of the culture of the criminal law of the East and the West and the influence on the present.
The comparative study of traditional Chinese and western legal culture allows us to have a deeper understanding of the traditional legal culture of the East and the West. The criminal nature of Chinese traditional law does not show that Chinese culture is backward. It only shows the public law and the political nature of this culture from one side. The traditional criminal law still exists in the law. The traditional Chinese criminal law is very developed and the criminal law of Rome is not developed. The factors behind it and the things that the system design reveal are what we need to reflect on. The Chinese traditional criminal law is well developed and reflects the development of the private law, which is the richest part of the western law. What we lack in the traditional legal culture may be a part of western legal culture which can be used for reference and reference.
This article, based on the specific criminal code of the crime of killing, compares the "Tang law" with the Rome law at a microscopic level, and tries to break through the previous model of the comparison between the Chinese and western legal culture in the past, and to analyze the crime of killing by the concept of modern criminal law, the system and the method of comparative study. On the basis of the comparison of the crime of killing and killing in the mode of the theory of responsibility and the theory of penalty, considering the difference in the proportion of the criminal law in the two legal systems, this article compares the two aspects of the criminal law with the developed aspects of the criminal law, and it is not possible to do so.
In view of the whole comparative study process, both the Tang law and the Rome law have their own characteristics, and we can not conclude that the ancient books are superior to the other in a modern view, and not to mention the comparison of the two classics in the case of the serious and unequal proportion of the criminal law. Because of the complicated reasons, it has an influence on the future law and tends to be modern and scientific, and has more legal rationality. "The Tang law" and the Rome law are the peak of the system of the East and the West. This is due to the continuous evolution of the law and the valuable accumulation of experience in the long years, because the evolution of the history is also the experience and wisdom. The process of knowledge enrichment and accumulation, which is benefited from experience, is far from being seen. The life of law lies in experience, not logic.
On the basis of the existing research, the thesis, first, draws on the comparative research method of modern criminal law, compares the specific legal norms in the traditional criminal law system of the two legal systems, and rises from the contrast of specific rules to the ideological and cultural level, and breaks the previous interpretation only on the macro cultural level. Second, it is carried out on the concrete system. At the same time, we do multifaceted reflection.
According to the need of topic research, semantic analysis, comparative analysis, microanalysis and exemplification are used in this thesis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D929;D904.1;D914

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 哈書菊;;羅馬法制下私權(quán)的公力救濟(jì)[J];北方論叢;2006年05期

2 祖?zhèn)?羅馬私犯法及其影響探微[J];德州學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年01期

3 葉秋華;劉海鷗;;論古代羅馬侵權(quán)行為法的發(fā)展演變[J];法學(xué)家;2006年06期

4 夏秀淵;;論古代羅馬法侵權(quán)行為的歸責(zé)原則[J];吉林省教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

5 汪海燕;古羅馬刑事訴訟制度與模式探微[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2003年05期

6 萬志鵬;略論古代羅馬刑法[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年S1期

7 宋云璇;;古羅馬刑法的特征及犯罪分類[J];政法論叢;2006年01期

本文編號(hào)：1941932