民国民法典施行前的“集居独立”论争考释  

A Debate of “Collective Residence but Independent” in the Compilation of Volume of Kinship of the Civil Code

作　　者：李伟 张雪 LI Wei;ZHANG Xue(College of Humanities and Law,Shandong University of Science and Technology,Qingdao 266590,China)

机构地区：[1]山东科技大学文法学院,山东青岛266590

出　　处：《河南科技大学学报（社会科学版）》2019年第2期93-99,共7页Journal of Henan University of Science & Technology(Social science)

基　　金：中国博士后科学基金面上资助项目(2018M632648);司法部国家法治与法学理论研究专项课题(16SFB5006)

摘　　要：民国时期的民法典亲属编编纂过程中,对于应否保留家族制存在歧异,1930年南京国民政府所制定的民法典亲属编则专设《家》一章。立法委员楼桐孙在亲属编通过后、施行前,提出"集居独立"的观点,即形式上"集居"、人格上"独立"。这一观点与亲属编都赞成适度保留家族制度,受到当时有关学者的反对。反对者认为亲属编应当以个人本位为原则,废除传统家制,确立小家庭制度。从实际立法来看,亲属编虽然规定了家制,但其目的在于维护个人利益,并非传统意义上的家族本位。学者们对立法本位理解的不同引起了这场争论。当代在移植、借鉴外来法律的同时,更要充分考虑本国国情和民族传统,建立符合中国实际的亲属法律制度。There were different opinions whether the family system should be reserved or not during the compilation process of the Civil Code of the Republic of China.A"family"system was set up in the Kinship of the Civil Code made by the Nanjing national government.Legislator Lou Tongsun put forward the view of"Collective Residence but Independent"after the family code issued.This view and the Volume of Kinship both approved of reservation of the clan system,which was therefore opposed by scholars.The opponents considered that the family compilation should be based on the principle of personal standard,and abolished the traditional value and establish the system of small family.Although the Family Code had not abolished the clan,they always maintained personal interests,and the essence was personal standard.This debate was caused by the different understanding of the legislative standard.We should give full consideration to our national conditions and national traditions while transplanting and drawing on foreign laws,and establish a legal system of kinship in line with China's reality.

关 键 词：亲属编 集居独立 个人本位 家族本位 

分 类 号：D909.92[政治法律—法学理论]