论文部分内容阅读
自清末以来,国内学界以“春秋国际法”为题的研究,一直存在两种研究思路。一为洪钧培在《春秋国际公法》中所持的“持今证古”式,一为陈顾远在《中国国际法溯源》中所持的“就史言史”式。从研究现状看,目前国内关于此问题的研究,在研究思路上基本沿袭了洪钧培的套路,其在方法论上的一些固有缺陷,在相关研究中不仅未得消弭,反有日益扩大之虞,从而导致一系列瑕疵结论的产生。通过反思“持今证古”思路中存在的问题,重申“就史言史”研究思路的价值,以及功能比较和自材料得观点研究方法的重要性。
Since the end of the Qing Dynasty, there have been two kinds of research ideas in the field of domestic and international scholars on the topic of “Spring and Autumn International Law.” One is Hong Junpei’s “Holding Today’s Evidence” in the “Spring and Autumn Public International Law,” and one is Chen Guyuan’s “History of the World” in the “Sources of China’s International Law.” Judging from the research status quo, at present, the domestic research on this issue basically followed Hong Jupei’s approach in the research ideas. Some of its inherent defects in methodology are not only eliminated but also expanded in the relevant research. Resulting in a series of flawed conclusions. By rethinking the existing problems in the thinking of “holding the present day of ancient China”, we reiterate the value of the research ideas of “History of Shi Yan” and the importance of the methods of comparative study on function and self-material point of view.