论民法典后司法解释之命运

On the Fate of Judicial Interpretation after the Civil Code

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

黄忠

归属院系：

民商法学院（知识产权学院）

作者：

黄忠1,2

摘要：

《民法典》生效后司法上面临如何看待既有司法解释的效力及未来是否应制定新司法解释的疑问。从司法解释的综合特性与民法典的编纂定位来讲,尚不能以《民法典》第1260条来一概否定既有司法解释的效力。民法典生效后既有司法解释的效力需区分程序性规定与实体性规定、解释性规定与创设性规定,并对照民法典的具体规定和立法精神作个别判断,且民法典未明确否定的司法解释规定原则上仍应继续有效。民法典后新司法解释的制定空间由立法供给与司法需求间的缺口决定。民法典既未垄断法源,亦未提供完备的裁判规范,故仍有解释空间。相较指导性案例,司法解释对统一法律适用更为主动、系统,更合乎国情,且契合民法法源的多元化要求。除"批复"类司法解释可被指导性案例取代外,其他形式的司法解释仍是切实实施好民法典的重要保障。

出版日期：

2020-12-09

学科：

民商法学

收录：

北大核心期刊; CSSCI; 中国科技核心期刊

提交日期：

2020-12-21

引用参考：

黄忠. 论民法典后司法解释之命运[J]. 中国法学,2020(06):44-63.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论民法典后司法解释之命运
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 黄忠
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Huang Zhong
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学;西南政法大学创新型国家建设法治研究院
  • dc.publisher
  • 中国法学
  • dc.publisher
  • China Legal Science
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2020
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 06
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • No.218
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 44-63
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2020-12-09
  • dc.subject
  • 民法典;司法解释;民法法源;指导性案例
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 《民法典》生效后司法上面临如何看待既有司法解释的效力及未来是否应制定新司法解释的疑问。从司法解释的综合特性与民法典的编纂定位来讲,尚不能以《民法典》第1260条来一概否定既有司法解释的效力。民法典生效后既有司法解释的效力需区分程序性规定与实体性规定、解释性规定与创设性规定,并对照民法典的具体规定和立法精神作个别判断,且民法典未明确否定的司法解释规定原则上仍应继续有效。民法典后新司法解释的制定空间由立法供给与司法需求间的缺口决定。民法典既未垄断法源,亦未提供完备的裁判规范,故仍有解释空间。相较指导性案例,司法解释对统一法律适用更为主动、系统,更合乎国情,且契合民法法源的多元化要求。除"批复"类司法解释可被指导性案例取代外,其他形式的司法解释仍是切实实施好民法典的重要保障。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • After the Civil Code comes into effect, judicial practice is faced with the question of how to treat the effects of existing judicial interpretations and whether new judicial interpretations should be formulated in the future. Based on the different positioning of the Civil Code and the judicial interpretations, we cannot deny the effectiveness of the existing judicial interpretations by article 1260 of the Civil Code. To answer the question of the effectiveness of the existing interpretation provisions after the Civil Code, it is necessary to distinguish between the procedural provisions and substantive provisions, interpretative provisions and creative provisions, and make individual judgments in accordance with the specific provisions and spirit of the Civil Code. The provisions of existing judicial interpretations that are not explicitly denied by the Civil Code should continue to be effective in principle. The formulation space of new judicial interpretations is determined by the gap between legislative supply and judicial demand. Since the Civil Code has neither the intention to monopolize the source of law nor complete rules for civil disputes, there is still room for judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court after the Civil Code. Compared with the guiding cases, judicial interpretations are not only more proactive and systematic for the unification of law, but also conforms to national conditions and meets the requirements of diverse sources of civil law. Other forms of judicial interpretations are still an important guarantee for the implementation of the Civil Code, except that the approval in judicial interpretations can be replaced by guiding cases.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 201818AFX015
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2018年度国家社科基金重点项目“中国民法上的中国元素研究”（项目批准号：18AFX015）的阶段性成果
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 11-1030/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1003-1707
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 7.844
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D923
回到顶部