主观诚信与客观诚信的分合与更名问题比较法考察——兼论中国的诚信立法向何处去  

A Comparative Law Report about the Problem of Unification and Split of Subjective Good Faith and Objective Good Faith and the Problem of Rename of Objective Good Faith

作　　者：徐国栋[1] 

机构地区：[1]厦门大学法学院罗马法研究所

出　　处：《社会科学》2013年第1期111-124,共14页Journal of Social Sciences

摘　　要：罗马人用统一的术语表达主观诚信与客观诚信,这种做法作为拉丁模式保留在现代许多国家的民法典中。德国人开启了用不同术语表达两种诚信的做法。荷兰人更进一步,开始以公平合理的概念取代客观诚信的概念。俄国人结合拉丁模式和德国模式,开创了用共同的术语表达两种诚信,但采用公平合理与诚信并用表达客观诚信的做法。在诸种模式中,中国应选择拉丁模式,并以社会契约论作为统一两种诚信的理论。The Romans used a uniform terminology to express the subjective good faith and objective good faith, this approach is retained in the modern civil codes of many countries as Latin mode. The German opened the approach to express two kind of good faith using different terminology. The Dutch go further, began to use the concept of fair and reasonable to replace the concept of objective good faith. Russians combined with the Latin mode and the German model, using a common term to express two kinds of good faith, but combine the fair and reasonable and with good faith to express an objective good faith. Among the various Modes, China should choose the Latin mode, and use the social contract theory as a theory to unify two kinds of good faith.

关 键 词：主观诚信 客观诚信 拉丁模式 德国模式 荷兰模式 俄罗斯模式 

分 类 号：D913.1[政治法律—民商法学]