论作为民法法源的“法理”

我国《民法典》第10条未将“法理”规定为第三位阶的法源。在理论上,除少数学者反对设立第三顺位法源外,多数学者赞同规定第三顺位法源,惟对其原因基本未详尽展开。无论是从法源条款的性质、使法源条款真正具有实益、为法律“续造”提供合法性基础的角度来看,还是从《民法典》已赋予法官较广泛司法权、我国民事法官依“法理”填补法律漏洞成为较为普遍的现实来看,抑或从发挥法理的“学科沟通功能”来看,确立第三顺位法源均有其必要性。从立法技术来看,将第三顺位法源表述为“民法基本原则”并非最优,仍以“法理”的表述为宜,因为“法理”的内涵与外延比“(民法)基本原则”更为丰富。除民法基本原则外,“法理”可能是非属民法基本原则范畴的民法基本原理、未明定的民法原则;此外,“法理”也可能是制定法乃至习惯法上的法律原则。

On “Jurisprudence” as the Source of Civil Law

Article 10 of China’s Civil Code does not stipulate“jurisprudence”as the third level source of law.In theory,except for a few scholars who oppose the establishment of the third-ranked source of law,most scholars agree to stipulate the third-ranked source of law,but the reasons behind it are basically unexplained.It is necessary to establish the third-ranked source of law,whether it is from the perspective of the nature of the source of law clauses,making the source of law clauses truly beneficial and providing a legal basis for the continuation of the law,or from the perspective of the Civil Code that has given judges more extensive judicial powers,and from the more common reality that our country’s civil judges follow the“jurisprudence”to fill legal loopholes,even from the perspective of the“legal review function”with“disciplinary communication function”of jurisprudence.Taking legislative technique into account,it is unreasonable to express the third-level source of law as“the basic principles of civil law”,instead it is still appropriate to express the“jurisprudence”because the connotation and extension of the“jurisprudence”are more abundant than the“basic principles(of civil law)”.