【摘要】：嚴(yán)格意義上的民事死亡制度起源于羅馬,判罪、移民兩種導(dǎo)致民事死亡的原因,在羅馬法上都發(fā)生了。從此,這兩者成為歷代的立法者和法學(xué)家考慮民事死亡問題的主線。而且,羅馬法學(xué)家感受到了一種類似于死亡的導(dǎo)致民事法律關(guān)系變化的法律事實,還差一里路把它提升為概念,進(jìn)而反過來把它系統(tǒng)化為制度,這一工作由中世紀(jì)法學(xué)家完成。他們型構(gòu)了擁有自然死亡和民事死亡兩個種的死亡的屬概念,進(jìn)而把兩種死亡都當(dāng)作導(dǎo)致法律關(guān)系變動的原因。而后,民事死亡按羅馬人開創(chuàng)的三個方向以立法的方式實現(xiàn)了體系化。但在19世紀(jì)后半葉,民事死亡制度遭遇了合理性危機(jī),導(dǎo)致多數(shù)采用它的國家和地區(qū)名義上廢除了它。但實際上,這種廢除實際上是"粉碎"。換言之,民事死亡的效果首先被分解為公法上的和私法上的,然后在這兩個范圍內(nèi)又進(jìn)一步地破碎化。除了少有的剔除,其余的"碎片"都換了個名稱繼續(xù)存在直到今天的現(xiàn)代法中。為何民事死亡制度不死?因為它滿足了一個社會清除害群之馬的需要和內(nèi)外有別的需要。
[Abstract]:In the strict sense, the civil death system originated in Rome, conviction and immigration, which led to civil death, both of which occurred in Roman law. Since then, these two have become the main line for lawmakers and jurists to consider the problem of civil death. Moreover, Roman jurists felt a legal fact similar to death that led to the change of civil legal relations, and there was still a mile left to upgrade it to a concept and, in turn, to systematize it into a system, which was done by medieval jurists. They construct the generic concept of death with two species of natural death and civil death, and then regard both kinds of death as the cause of the change of legal relationship. Then, according to the three directions created by the Romans, civil death was systematized by legislation. But in the second half of the 19th century, the civil death system encountered a crisis of reasonableness, which led to the nominal abolition of most of the countries and regions that adopted it. But in fact, this abolition is actually "shredded". In other words, the effect of civil death is first decomposed into public law and private law, and then further broken in these two areas. With the exception of rare knockout, the rest of the debris has been renamed and continues to exist until today's modern law. Why does the civil death system not die? Because it meets the needs of a society to clear the black sheep and the need for internal and external differences.
【作者單位】： 廈門大學(xué)法學(xué)院羅馬法研究所;
【分類號】：D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 王森波;;一個“常識性”問題的法學(xué)難題:對“平等主體”的再思考——兼評徐國棟教授的“民事屈從關(guān)系”[J];湖北社會科學(xué);2014年08期

2 紀(jì)宗安,何新華;納粹德國排猶政策的演變及根源探析[J];暨南學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2003年03期

3 張令杰;;談剝奪政治權(quán)利[J];法學(xué)研究;1981年06期

4 謝望原;希臘刑罰制度要論[J];法學(xué)論壇;2002年02期

5 韓華;傅安洲;;分析心理學(xué)視角中的德國滅絕種族的排猶主義[J];社會心理科學(xué);2002年02期

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊慶余;王長富;;國家意志與科學(xué)共同體的命運(yùn)——以納粹“排猶”政策實施為例[J];物理與工程;2012年02期

2 胡之芳;譚志君;;死刑復(fù)核程序中被告人的訴訟權(quán)利問題[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年05期

3 陸青;;論民法研究范式的綠色轉(zhuǎn)向[J];北方法學(xué);2014年05期

4 張圣斌;范莉;莊緒龍;;人體冷凍胚胎監(jiān)管、處置權(quán)歸屬的認(rèn)識[J];法律適用;2014年11期

5 蔡q，

本文編號：2508232