中国需要什么样的法理学

发布时间：2018-03-31 11:32

本文选题：中国海洋大学　切入点：部门法　出处：《中国法律评论》2016年03期

【摘要】：《中国法律评论》2016年第2期刊登了徐爱国教授的学术批评文章《论中国法理学的"死亡"》,一时间引起法学界瞩目热议:中国法理学是真亡,还是假寐?中国法理学诸多问题的病因何在?法理学如何在中国获得新生?……有鉴于此,本刊编辑部于2016年4月27日主办学术沙龙,以"中国需要什么样的法理学"为主题,邀请上海交通大学凯原法学院季卫东教授、中国政法大学法学院舒国滢教授、北京大学法学院徐爱国教授、中国海洋大学法政学院桑本谦教授、中国政法大学法学院陈景辉教授、清华大学法学院聂鑫副教授、北京师范大学法学院马剑银博士等七位学者走进"中法评·会客厅",为"拯救"中国法理学"寻医问药"。谈及法理学与政治、意识形态的关系时,在场有学者认为二者关系不能过于密切;法理学的"病因"在于学术与政治的紧张关紧,法理学应当是"纯思"的学问。编者认为,在中国,不受意识形态影响的法理学是不存在的。我们不否认和不完全拒绝意识形态对法理学的影响,但要避免法理学的"泛意识形态化"。特别是当主流意识形态理论学术尚未成熟时,法理学研究的"泛意识形态化",不利于学科的建设和发展。另外,对于法理学与部门法的关系以及如何回应中国实践的问题,各位嘉宾有不同的看法,或许我们可以另辟机会,专场研讨。
[Abstract]:The second issue of the China Law Review in 2016 published an academic criticism article by Professor Xu Patriotic, "on the death of Chinese Jurisprudence," which has aroused the attention of the legal community for a moment: is Chinese jurisprudence true or false? Where are the causes of many problems in Chinese jurisprudence? How can jurisprudence be reborn in China? In view of this, on April 27, 2016, our editorial department hosted an academic salon with the theme of "what kind of jurisprudence does China need?" and invited Professor Ji Weidong of Kaiyuan Law School of Shanghai Jiaotong University and Professor Shu Guoying of Law School of China University of political Science and Law, Professor Xu Patriotic, School of Law, Peking University; Professor Sam Benqian, School of Law, Ocean University of China; Professor Chen Jinghui, School of Law, China University of political Science and Law; Associate Professor Nie Xin, School of Law, Tsinghua University; Seven scholars, including Dr. Ma Jianyin, School of Law of Beijing normal University, went into the "Sino-French Evaluation Committee living Room" to "save" Chinese jurisprudence and seek medical advice. When talking about the relationship between jurisprudence and politics and ideology, Some scholars present believed that the relationship between the two should not be too close; the "cause" of jurisprudence lies in the tight relationship between academic and political tension, and jurisprudence should be the knowledge of "pure thought." the editor believes that in China, Jurisprudence, which is not influenced by ideology, does not exist. We do not deny or reject completely the influence of ideology on jurisprudence, but we should avoid the "pan-ideology" of jurisprudence. The "pan-ideology" of jurisprudence studies is not conducive to the construction and development of disciplines. In addition, distinguished guests have different views on the relationship between jurisprudence and departmental law and on how to respond to Chinese practice. Perhaps we can open up another opportunity. Special discussion.
【作者单位】：上海交通大学凯原法学院;中国政法大学法学院;北京大学法学院;中国海洋大学法政学院;清华大学法学院;北京师范大学法学院;
【分类号】：D90

【相似文献】