中国刑法典评注的起草——德国对中国理想主义的思考

M. Bohlander
{"title":"中国刑法典评注的起草——德国对中国理想主义的思考","authors":"M. Bohlander","doi":"10.1080/20517483.2021.1978676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Chinese criminal law scholars have increasingly been establishing links with colleagues in other jurisdictions and drawing benefits from comparative research, and more than anything else with those from Germany. This appears to be based on the fact that both Germany and China are at their core civil law systems, and that German scholarship in criminal law tends to have historically had, and still to have, a reputation abroad for a high degree of doctrinal sophistication that may appeal to other legal systems with a similar conceptual DNA. One major factor which keeps recurring in the recent Chinese debate is the dramatically increasing level of interest in a particularly Teutonic tool of legal scholarship, the code commentary. This paper will first interrogate the development of the debate in China about the introduction of commentaries, followed by a look at the German system in particular, in order to find out whether and how it might benefit the discussion in China. Finally, against that background the paper will try to map out some of the conceptual challenges a Chinese endeavour will face, given the current climate of a gradual paradigm shift from the overcome Soviet-based law to a new framework that is, however, still lacking sharp contours.","PeriodicalId":108655,"journal":{"name":"Peking University Law Journal","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drafting a commentary on the Chinese Criminal Code – German reflections on a Chinese desideratum\",\"authors\":\"M. Bohlander\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20517483.2021.1978676\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Chinese criminal law scholars have increasingly been establishing links with colleagues in other jurisdictions and drawing benefits from comparative research, and more than anything else with those from Germany. This appears to be based on the fact that both Germany and China are at their core civil law systems, and that German scholarship in criminal law tends to have historically had, and still to have, a reputation abroad for a high degree of doctrinal sophistication that may appeal to other legal systems with a similar conceptual DNA. One major factor which keeps recurring in the recent Chinese debate is the dramatically increasing level of interest in a particularly Teutonic tool of legal scholarship, the code commentary. This paper will first interrogate the development of the debate in China about the introduction of commentaries, followed by a look at the German system in particular, in order to find out whether and how it might benefit the discussion in China. Finally, against that background the paper will try to map out some of the conceptual challenges a Chinese endeavour will face, given the current climate of a gradual paradigm shift from the overcome Soviet-based law to a new framework that is, however, still lacking sharp contours.\",\"PeriodicalId\":108655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Peking University Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Peking University Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20517483.2021.1978676\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peking University Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20517483.2021.1978676","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

中国刑法学者越来越多地与其他司法管辖区的同行建立联系,并从比较研究中获益,尤其是与德国的同行。这似乎是基于这样一个事实,即德国和中国都处于其民法体系的核心,而德国刑法学术在历史上往往拥有,并且仍然拥有,在国外享有高度理论复杂性的声誉,这可能会吸引具有类似概念DNA的其他法律体系。在最近的中国辩论中不断出现的一个主要因素是,人们对一种特殊的日耳曼法律学术工具——法典注释——的兴趣急剧上升。本文将首先询问中国关于引入评注的辩论的发展,然后特别看看德国的制度,以找出它是否以及如何有益于中国的讨论。最后,在此背景下,本文将尝试绘制出中国努力将面临的一些概念性挑战,考虑到当前的气候,即从以苏联为基础的法律逐渐转变为一种新的框架,然而,这种框架仍然缺乏清晰的轮廓。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Drafting a commentary on the Chinese Criminal Code – German reflections on a Chinese desideratum
ABSTRACT Chinese criminal law scholars have increasingly been establishing links with colleagues in other jurisdictions and drawing benefits from comparative research, and more than anything else with those from Germany. This appears to be based on the fact that both Germany and China are at their core civil law systems, and that German scholarship in criminal law tends to have historically had, and still to have, a reputation abroad for a high degree of doctrinal sophistication that may appeal to other legal systems with a similar conceptual DNA. One major factor which keeps recurring in the recent Chinese debate is the dramatically increasing level of interest in a particularly Teutonic tool of legal scholarship, the code commentary. This paper will first interrogate the development of the debate in China about the introduction of commentaries, followed by a look at the German system in particular, in order to find out whether and how it might benefit the discussion in China. Finally, against that background the paper will try to map out some of the conceptual challenges a Chinese endeavour will face, given the current climate of a gradual paradigm shift from the overcome Soviet-based law to a new framework that is, however, still lacking sharp contours.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信