唐律不應得為罪的當代思考

黃源盛

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2025/01/01~2025/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P1 - 8+10-38+40-61

社会科学 > 法律学

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

唐律不应得为罪的当代思考

A Contemporary View on the ＂Doing What Ought Not to Be Done＂ statute of the T’ang Code

黄源盛(Huang Yuan-sheng)

法制史研究； 5 期 (2004 / 06 / 01) ， P1 - 8+10-38+40-61

繁体中文

不应得为；唐律；罪刑法定；礼与刑；立法技术； Doing What Ought Not to Be Done ； the T’ang Code ； Ritual and Punishment ； nullum crimen sine lege ； nulla poena sine lege ； Legislative techniques

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (34) │ 被引用文献 (6) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

The judicial procedure of imperial China required that the citation of a relevant statute or ordinance always accompany the pronouncement of sentence. Because most laws tended to be narrowly specific, judges were frequently confronted by cases whose circumstances were not clearly covered by any existing statutes or ordinances. The major device for coping with this problem was the application of law by analogy. In addition, several so-called ＂catchall statutes＂ were adopted, of which the ＂doing what ought not to be done＂ statute was the most commonly used for relatively minor infractions. By this, individuals convicted of doing what ought not to be done received a punishment of 40 blows of the light bamboo for minor infractions or 80 blows of the heavy bamboo for serious infractions. In the general format of the T’ang Code, the ＂ought not＂ statute was positioned at the end of the tenth division entitled ＂the Miscellaneous Statutes＂ (tsa lü). It was a regular statute like other substantial ones formally in the code, but was very marvelous exactly. Putting into effect the traditional idea of ＂let the punishment fit the crime＂, any acts which disregarded the ＂li＂ (ritual; etiquette) or contradicted the ＂li＂ (reason; right) were considered to be ＂ought not＂. The statute was aimed at all acts that diverged from social order or violated ethical or moral duties. These were acts that, though not specifically prohibited, were deemed reprehensible by the authority. There is no doubt that, the ＂ought not＂ statute contradicts the contemporary thinking of the ＂nullum crimen sine lege; nulla poena sine lege＂ principle. From a contemporary perspective, serious of questions arise: When did the ＂ought not＂ statute begin? What was the real purpose of this legislation? How was the punishment determined? As there were no explicit conditions to define the crime of ＂doing ought not＂, what did ＂ought＂ and ＂ought not＂ really mean? What were the standards of ＂seriousness＂ in situation and reason? How were the explanation and examples in the ＂T’ang-lü-shu-yi＂ (T’ang Code with Commentary) used to understand the real meaning of the statute? How can we determine the exact practice of the statute using the extant T’ang documents which are only marginally relative to judicial practice? By invoking the principles of contemporary criminal law, what problems can we clarify? How did this statute’s influence later dynasties and other countries, for instance, Japan? To date the ＂ought not＂ statute has rarely been studied; the goal of the present paper is to understand the issues set out above.

参考文献 ( 34 ) 〈TOP〉

高明士(2003)。从律令制的演变看唐宋间的变革。台大历史学报，32
连结：
(1967)。四部丛刊初编经部：尚书大传。上海:上海商务印书馆。
(1982)。清代地租剥削型态。北京:中华书局。
(1975)。汉书。台北:洪氏出版社。
唐张鸾撰、田涛、郭成伟校注(1996)。龙筋凤髓判。北京:中国政法大学出版社。

被引用文献 ( 6 ) 〈TOP〉

陈丽君(2009)。元杂剧中法律的戏剧呈现。东海中文学报，21，89-111。
高明士(2011)。唐律中的「理」─断罪的第三法源。台湾师大历史学报，45，1-40。
黄源盛(2008)。释滞与擅断之间—唐律轻重相举条的当代诠释。法制史研究，13，1-42。
(2004)。法理与文采之间—读《龙筋凤髓判》。政大法学评论，79，1-52。
(2004)。清代的法律方法论—以《刑案汇览三编》爲中心的论证。法制史研究，6，99-133。

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址