| 摘要: |
| 本文把中国语境下权利论题所遇到的困惑与矛盾统称为“梅氏困境”（Meis Dilemma）。中西方文化差异虽然是造成“梅氏困境”及其延伸问题的其中一个原因，但在没有这种差异的英美甚至一些欧陆国家处理相关论题时也在不同程度上有类似的困难。近现代“权利”一词及其概念并非中国古已有之，而是在19世纪通过美传教士自英语“right(s)”一词翻译而来，并在公共话语领域逐渐流行；随后东渡日本，在法学领域成为通行译法，复又传回中国。欧陆法学和英美法学虽同样继受了罗马法的尤斯（IUS）传统，并在不同的历史时期经历了尤斯主观化道路，但是在术语的使用上，英语世界基本实现了权法分离，而欧陆世界则因为直接继受罗马法的制度和制度名称，最终无法实现分离而以主观客观之分替代。本文认为，在非法律术语领域翻译时应把英语词right译成汉语词“权利”。在法律术语的范畴，当翻译单独出现的德语词Recht时，视语境译为“法”或“权”，而遇有疑问时均应译为“法权”；subjektives Recht应译为“主观法权”，objektives Recht应译为“客观法权”。古罗马文献中的IUS应音译为“尤斯”，或根据其语境按意义译出。 |
| 关键词: 梅氏困境 尤斯 权利 主观法权 客观法权 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| The Topic of Rights Under the Chinese Context and the Evolution of Roman Law IUS Tradition — Focusing on the Rational Use of Several Technical Terms |
|
Tang Xiaoqing & Wen Wen
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| We collectively refer to the confusions and contradictions encountered in the topics of right(s) in the Chinese context as “Meis Dilemma”. The cultural differences between China and the West are parts of the reasons for the “Meis Dilemma” and its extension problems, however, similar difficulties can also be found in the UK, the United States and even some continental European countries that do not have such cultural differences. The Chinese word “权利” (quan li) and its modern concept cannot be found in ancient China. This word was translated from the English word “right(s)” by American missionaries in the 19th century, and gradually got popularized in the field of public discourse. Soon after that, such a translation method became popular in the field of jurisprudence in Japan, and then it was transmitted back to China again. Both European jurisprudence and English jurisprudence have inherited the IUS traditions of Roman Law, and have experienced the subjectification path of IUS in different historical periods. However, the terminological use in the English world has basically separated the concepts of “right” and “law”, while the continental European world has directly inherited the institutions and the institution names of Roman Law that such terminological separation could not be achieved. As an alternative, the words “subjective” and “objective” were used to refer to such separation. We insist that when translating in the field of non legal terms, the English word “right(s)” should be translated into the Chinese word “权利”. In terms of legal terminology, the German word “Recht” which appears separately should be translated as “法” (fa) or “权” (quan) according to its context, while in cases of doubt, it should be translated as “法权” (fa quan); the word “subjektives Recht” should be translated as “主观法权”（zhu guan fa quan）, and the word “objektives Recht” should be translated as “客观法权” (ke guan fa quan). The word “IUS” in Ancient Roman documents should be transliterated as “尤斯” (you si), or translated according to its context and its meaning. |
| Key words: Mei's Dilemma, IUS, right(s), subjektives Recht, objektives Recht |
