2020年5月28日,《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)正式发布,通过我国的民法发展历程,可以看到我国对于西方法律文明的借鉴,特别是在民法典的制度过程中,充分借鉴了德国潘德克顿体系总分的立法技术,然而,西方潘德克顿体系影响的国家,其民法的立法体系,大多会设置债法总则,甚至单独制定一部《债法》,而纵观我国的《民法典》中却没有设置债法总则和债法的一般规定。这在潘德克顿体系的学者看来,这是出格的甚至是不可思议的。然而,任何一部法典的出台,必然会有其适合的土壤。那么在我国的《民法典》中不存在形式意义上的债法总则的情况下,如何在债法领域众多具有现实意义的问题中,去解决因为没有设置债法总则带来的问题,探讨我国民法典不设债权总则的原因以及如何识别和适用类似债总规范就尤为重要。本文通过对我国民法的发展历程,以及对于《德国民法典》中潘德克顿体系的借鉴,现行《民法典》的诸多益处,来分析我国民法典不设债权总则的原因。On May 28, 2020, the “Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code”) was officially released. Through the development process of China’s civil law, we can see China’s reference to the Western legal civilization;especially in the system process of the Civil Code, it fully draws on the legislative technique of the general and sub-points of the German Pandekten system. However, in the countries influenced by the Western Pandekten system, the legislative system of their civil law mostly sets up the general provisions of the law of obligations, or even formulates a separate “Law of Obligations”. However, throughout our “Civil Code”, there is no setting of the general provisions of the law of obligations and the general provisions of the law of obligations. In the view of scholars of the Pandekten system, t
