中国近代宪法与宪政谱系中的反讽

Q2 Social Sciences Global Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2023-09-12 DOI:10.1163/2211906x-12030001

David K.C. Huang, Nigel N.T. Li

{"title":"中国近代宪法与宪政谱系中的反讽","authors":"David K.C. Huang, Nigel N.T. Li","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-12030001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article juxtaposes modern Chinese constitutions and constitutionalism with constitutionalism chiefly developed in the West for clarity on the former’s lineage. As constitution is a concept foreign to China, there is no need for the country to enact any constitution unless it genuinely intends to embrace the true spirit of constitutionalism. A comparison of three signal Chinese constitutions yields an ironic, counterintuitive result, for the Constitution of the Republic of China is a refutation of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage Period (enacted in 1931), whereas the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, though enacted by the Communists, bears the legacy of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Irony in the Lineage of Modern Chinese Constitutions and Constitutionalism\",\"authors\":\"David K.C. Huang, Nigel N.T. Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2211906x-12030001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article juxtaposes modern Chinese constitutions and constitutionalism with constitutionalism chiefly developed in the West for clarity on the former’s lineage. As constitution is a concept foreign to China, there is no need for the country to enact any constitution unless it genuinely intends to embrace the true spirit of constitutionalism. A comparison of three signal Chinese constitutions yields an ironic, counterintuitive result, for the Constitution of the Republic of China is a refutation of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage Period (enacted in 1931), whereas the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, though enacted by the Communists, bears the legacy of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-12030001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-12030001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文将近代中国宪法和宪政与主要在西方发展的宪政并置，以厘清近代中国宪法和宪政的渊源。由于宪法对中国来说是一个陌生的概念，所以中国没有必要制定任何宪法，除非它真正打算拥抱真正的宪政精神。对中国三部标志性宪法的比较产生了一个讽刺的、违反直觉的结果，因为中华民国宪法是对1931年制定的《国民政治监护基本法》的反驳，而中华人民共和国宪法虽然是由共产党制定的，却继承了《国民政治监护基本法》的遗产。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

The Irony in the Lineage of Modern Chinese Constitutions and Constitutionalism

Abstract This article juxtaposes modern Chinese constitutions and constitutionalism with constitutionalism chiefly developed in the West for clarity on the former’s lineage. As constitution is a concept foreign to China, there is no need for the country to enact any constitution unless it genuinely intends to embrace the true spirit of constitutionalism. A comparison of three signal Chinese constitutions yields an ironic, counterintuitive result, for the Constitution of the Republic of China is a refutation of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage Period (enacted in 1931), whereas the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, though enacted by the Communists, bears the legacy of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Global Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Global Journal of Comparative Law is a peer reviewed periodical that provides a dynamic platform for the dissemination of ideas on comparative law and reports on developments in the field of comparative law from all parts of the world. In our contemporary globalized world, it is almost impossible to isolate developments in the law in one jurisdiction or society from another. At the same time, what is traditionally called comparative law is increasingly subsumed under aspects of International Law. The Global Journal of Comparative Law therefore aims to maintain the discipline of comparative legal studies as vigorous and dynamic by deepening the space for comparative work in its transnational context.