It is with great pleasure, and at the request of its author, my friend and colleague Tong Zhiwei, that I pass along a exquisitely intense, profound, transformative, and thought provoking development of a general theory of law, his jurisprudence of Faquanism (Faquanzhuyi). It is entitled 童之伟 我之法学思想观点重述 [Tong Zhiwei, A Restatement of My Jurisprudential Thoughts and Views] and appears in the original Chinese and Professor Tong's English translation.
最近与某机构有约，由我自己出面，从法的一般理论角度，概括一下自己的法学思想观点。我觉得这很有意思，值得花时间做一做。我在法学上的一些想法，很肤浅、不成熟，大部分反映在最近十年出版的几本书中（十年来出版的书目，附后），少部分曾通过学术讲座的形式呈现。在本文中，权体量和结构公理、义务体量和结构公理是2023前后我在武大法学院秦前红教授主持的学术讲座上提出和阐释的，权结构平衡、法权结构平衡2023年5月在香港中文大学法学院习超教授主持的学术讲座上有较集中论述，而关于国际法的七个观点都是2026年5月下旬我在四川大学国际关系学院李昊教授主持的学术报告会上提出和阐释的。现将我的法学思想观点简单重述如下：
I recently made an arrangement with an institution that I would myself, from the perspective of the general theory of law, summarize my own thoughts and views on jurisprudence. I find this very interesting and well worth the time. My ideas on jurisprudence, which are rather superficial and immature, are mostly reflected in the several books I have published over the past decade (a list of these books is appended); a smaller part has been presented in the form of academic lectures. Of the views restated in this essay, the axiom of the volume and structure of quan and the axiom of the volume and structure of duties were proposed and expounded around 2023 in an academic lecture at Wuhan University School of Law chaired by Professor Qin Qianhong; the balance of the quan structure and the balance of the faquan structure were discussed in a relatively concentrated manner in May 2023 in an academic lecture at the Faculty of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong chaired by Professor Xi Chao; and the seven propositions concerning international law were all proposed and expounded in late May 2026 at an academic lecture at the School of International Studies, Sichuan University, chaired by Professor Li Hao. I now briefly restate my jurisprudential thoughts and views as follows:
In this restatement, Professor Tong synthesizes and restates his jurisprudence of Faquanism (Faquanzhuyi), offering a materialist alternative to imported legal paradigms. Utilizing Marx’s method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, Tong posits quan (权)—the manifestation of all interests and property in social norms—as the foundational analytical starting point. Dialectically, quan yields a cluster of seven essential categories: quan, faquan, residual quan, rights, powers, duties, and law.
Faquan represents property with settled ownership recognized in positive law, resolving into individual rights and public powers. Conversely, residual quan represents extra-legal norms governing unsettled property. Duties reflect the negative-value counterpart of these positive holdings. Under Tong’s structural axioms, the volume of quan directly depends on total property, while the proportional share of rights versus powers within faquan is determined by the ratio of private to public property. The core function of law is to optimize the allocation of quan and faquan, preserving equilibrium across zero-sum dynamics (faquan vs. residual quan; rights vs. powers) to avoid both state despotism and social anarchy.
Tong critiques contemporary Chinese jurisprudence for relying on "Japanized" translations (和化“权利”) that conflate rights and powers under a single term, urging Chinese scholarship to embrace native, precise terminology. Finally, Tong extends faquanism to international law: state entities hold international rights based on national wealth, whereas international organs exercise international power through autonomous budgetary enforcement. He concludes that current global insecurity stems from severe disparities in state rights and an underdevelopment of institutional international power.
 |
| generated with Grok |
I will have more to say about this in future posts. For the moment it may be worthwhile to lay out simply the fundamentals of what I have, as of this moment, captured from this highly nuanced and sophisticated project:
Adopting Marx’s method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, Tong selects Quan (权) as the initial, most abstract analytical starting point for jurisprudence. Quan is defined as "the manifestation of all interests and property in social norms of every kind." From it seven basic categories may be organized/recognized, the interactions of which, through the dialectical movement of quan, produce a phenomenological aspect as the general theory. These consist of a cluster of seven essential concepts that exhaustively analyze legal phenomena: (1) Quan (权); (2) Faquan (法权); (3) Residual quan (剩余权); (4)
Rights (权利); (5) Powers (权力); (6) Duties (义务 / 法义务); and (7) Law (法 / 法律).
Ontologically, Quan encompasses all positive manifestations of interest and property across both legal and extra-legal social norms. It sits above faquan and residual quan as their total sum, defining the outer boundary of the jurisprudential system. Simultaneously, Quan resides immanently within the dialectical tension between its two primary operational components: (1) Faquan (法权): The legal manifestation of property whose ownership is settled (guishu yiding / 归属已定); and (2) Residual quan (剩余权): The extra-legal manifestation of property whose ownership remains unsettled (guishu weiding / 归属未定).
When Quan enters positive law, it becomes Faquan, which serves as the core operational entity of the legal system. Faquan further decomposes into Rights (held by individuals based on individual property) and Powers (held by public authorities based on public property). Under this property-determinist baseline, the total volume of rights is dictated by individual property, while the total volume of powers is dictated by public property—with even non-material interests (such as personality rights) ultimately underpinned by real property rights (wuquan / 物权). Correspondingly, Duties constitute the negative side (negative-value property) attached to these categories.
Because economic processes (production, exchange, and consumption) continuously alter the underlying distribution of property, faquan and residual quan exist in a zero-sum, dynamic ratio (Faquan Rate + Residual quan Rate = 100%). The dynamic absorption and realignment of residual quan into faquan serves as the primary engine of legal evolution. Ultimately, law acts as both organizer and mediator: optimizing the allocation of quan and faquan to ensure structural balance, prevent both anarchy and despotic power, and maximize the preservation and growth of faquan.
As a first order general understanding, then, one might say that under Tong's model, the primary function of law is to act as both organizer and mediator, maintaining a dynamic balance between private rights and public power.
| Category | Textual Definition & Material Base | Structural & Practical Function |
| Quan (权) | Abstract starting point; manifestation of all interests and property in social norms. | The overarching totality (Faquan + Residual Quan). |
| Faquan (法权) | Manifestation in law of property whose ownership is settled. | Core legal phenomenon; rights-powers community; center of the legal system. |
| Residual Quan (剩余权) | Manifestation in social norms outside law of property whose ownership is unsettled. | Extra-legal reservoir; fundamental object of legal regulation when interacting with faquan. |
| Rights (权利) | Legal form of individual interests and individual property. | Individual portion of faquan. |
| Powers (权力) | Legal form of public interests and public authority property. | Public/state portion of faquan. |
| Duties (义务) | Reverse side of quan/faquan; negative interests and negative-value property. | Corresponding burden attached to rights, powers, and residual forms[cite: 3]. |
| Structural Balance | Ratios of Faquan Rate / Residual Quan Rate and Rights Rate / Powers Rate[cite: 3]. | Ideal law-based state avoids anarchy (excess rights) and despotism (excess powers)[cite: 3]. |
| Internationalization | Transformation of domestic faquan to international entities (states/orgs)[cite: 3]. | Analyzes global order via international natural rights vs. institutional powers[cite: 3]. |
It is interesting to situate Professor Tong's general theory against the Institutes of Justinian for the light they may begin to shed on both. Faquanism and the Insitutes might be said to diverge fundamentally in their analytical methods, reflecting their distinct historical and philosophical foundations. The Institutes, written as an introductory textbook for Roman legal education, employs an inductive, categorization-driven process. It opens with pragmatic definitions of justice and jurisprudence before dividing the entirety of private law into three practical axes: persons (personae), things (res), and actions (actiones). In contrast, Tong explicitly adopts Karl Marx’s dialectical method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete. Through the internal dialectical movement of quan, Tong derives a cluster of seven interdependent categories (quan, faquan, residual quan, rights, powers, duties, and law) that systematically unfold to explain the entire world of legal phenomena.
While both systems recognize property as a cornerstone of legal order, they conceptualize the source and function of legal norms differently. In the Justinianic framework, norms derive their legitimacy from a dual tier of natural law (ius naturale / ius gentium) and civil law (ius civile). Property rights in Roman law are classified by their mode of acquisition (natural vs. civil) and physical nature, operating alongside civil status to define legal capability. Tong’s Faquanism, by contrast, establishes a strict materialist property-determinism. Legal norms do not derive from abstract moral principles or natural law; rather, faquan (and positive law itself) is an explicit product of economic processes. The volume of individual property dictates the total volume of individual rights, while the volume of public property dictates public power. Even non-material norms and personal protections (such as personality rights) are ultimately underpinned by real property rights (wuquan). Where Justinian views property as an object governed by law, Tong views property dynamic processes (production, exchange, consumption) as the foundational engine that generates and shifts legal norms.
There is much more by way of theoretic richness in Professor Tong's work. But there is nothing more enlightening than the original. It follows below and may be accessed online HERE.
A Restatement of My Jurisprudential Thoughts and Views
我之法学思想观点重述
童之伟
[Note:1. This text was manually edited by Tong Zhiwei based on AI translation.2. Following the author’s own established English usage (see Right, Power, and Faquanism, Brill, 2018), 权 is rendered as quan, 法权 as faquan, and 剩余权 as residual quan; 权利 is rendered as “rights” and 权力 as “powers”.]
最近与某机构有约，由我自己出面，从法的一般理论角度，概括一下自己的法学思想观点。我觉得这很有意思，值得花时间做一做。我在法学上的一些想法，很肤浅、不成熟，大部分反映在最近十年出版的几本书中（十年来出版的书目，附后），少部分曾通过学术讲座的形式呈现。在本文中，权体量和结构公理、义务体量和结构公理是2023前后我在武大法学院秦前红教授主持的学术讲座上提出和阐释的，权结构平衡、法权结构平衡2023年5月在香港中文大学法学院习超教授主持的学术讲座上有较集中论述，而关于国际法的七个观点都是2026年5月下旬我在四川大学国际关系学院李昊教授主持的学术报告会上提出和阐释的。现将我的法学思想观点简单重述如下：
I recently made an arrangement with an institution that I would myself, from the perspective of the general theory of law, summarize my own thoughts and views on jurisprudence. I find this very interesting and well worth the time. My ideas on jurisprudence, which are rather superficial and immature, are mostly reflected in the several books I have published over the past decade (a list of these books is appended); a smaller part has been presented in the form of academic lectures. Of the views restated in this essay, the axiom of the volume and structure of quan and the axiom of the volume and structure of duties were proposed and expounded around 2023 in an academic lecture at Wuhan University School of Law chaired by Professor Qin Qianhong; the balance of the quan structure and the balance of the faquan structure were discussed in a relatively concentrated manner in May 2023 in an academic lecture at the Faculty of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong chaired by Professor Xi Chao; and the seven propositions concerning international law were all proposed and expounded in late May 2026 at an academic lecture at the School of International Studies, Sichuan University, chaired by Professor Li Hao. I now briefly restate my jurisprudential thoughts and views as follows:
1.法是公共机构制定或认可，用以分配权、法权并规范其运用行为的社会规范。
1. Law is the body of social norms enacted or recognized by public institutions to distribute quan and faquan and to regulate the conduct by which they are exercised.
2.权是由法权和剩余权构成的共同体或统一体，是全部利益、财产在各种社会规范中的表现。
2. Quan is a community or unity composed of faquan and residual quan; it is the manifestation of all interests and property in social norms of every kind.
3.进入法中之权成为法权，法权是归属已定财产和相应利益在法中的表现。法权分解为权利、权力两部分，是半隐性的，它以权利权力共同体形式存在，是最为重要的法现象。法权与剩余权的关系和矛盾是法调整的基础性对象，因而也是法学应研究的基础性内容之一。
3. Quan that has entered into law becomes faquan. Faquan is the manifestation in law of property whose ownership has been settled and of the corresponding interests. Faquan resolves into two parts, rights and powers; it is semi-latent, exists in the form of a rights–powers community, and is the most important legal phenomenon. The relationship and contradiction between faquan and residual quan are the fundamental object of legal regulation, and therefore also one of the fundamental subjects that jurisprudence should study.
4.法权是经济过程的产物，其在一国的总量取决于进入生产、交换和消费过程的财产的总量，因而是动态的、处在变化中的。但在一个国家或社会的特定时段，因为研究和把握法权、权利和权力的需要，应该先行暂时将它们假定为静态的、不变的量。
4. Faquan is a product of economic processes. Its total volume in a country depends on the total volume of property entering the processes of production, exchange, and consumption; it is therefore dynamic and constantly changing. Within a given period of a particular country or society, however, for the purpose of studying and grasping faquan, rights, and powers, they should first be provisionally assumed to be static, unchanging quantities.
5.未进入法中之权是剩余权，它是归属未定财产和相应利益在法外社会规范中的表现。
5. Quan that has not entered into law is residual quan; it is the manifestation, in social norms outside the law, of property whose ownership remains unsettled and of the corresponding interests.
6. 宪权是首要法权，由公民基本权利和国家权力构成，是权的核心部分，其另一面是宪法义务或宪义务。
6. Constitutional quan (xianquan) is the primary faquan. It is composed of citizens’ fundamental rights and state powers and forms the core part of quan; its other side is constitutional duties.
7.权利是公民等个体利益和个人财产的法律存在形式，是法权中由个人享有的部分。
7. Rights are the legal form of existence of the interests of citizens and other individuals and of individual property; they are the portion of faquan enjoyed by individuals.
8.权力是公共利益和公共机关所有之财产的法律存在形式，是法权中由公共机关（其典型存在形式是国家机关）享有的部分。
8. Powers are the legal form of existence of public interests and of property owned by public authorities; they are the portion of faquan enjoyed by public authorities (whose typical form of existence is the state organ).
9.义务、法义务是权、法权的反面，具体说来就是权利、权力、剩余权利、剩余权力的反面，即同这四者对应的负的利益和负值财产内容。
9. Duties, including legal duties, are the reverse side of quan and faquan — specifically, the reverse side of rights, powers, residual rights, and residual powers; that is, the negative interests and negative-value property corresponding to these four.
10.法的作用应该是通过规范人的行为优化权、法权配置，实现法权最大限度的保存和增殖。
10. The function of law should be to optimize the allocation of quan and faquan by regulating human conduct, so as to achieve the greatest possible preservation and growth of faquan.
11.法的正义就是每个人不多不少正好得到他/她应该得到的那部分法权，且不承担不应承担的义务。
11. Justice in law means that every person receives, neither more nor less, exactly that share of faquan which he or she ought to receive, and bears no duty that he or she ought not to bear.
12.法律关系即法权关系，其实质是利益关系，归根结底是财产关系（人格权也靠物权维持、托底）；法律关系包括两个层次：第一层次是个人与公共机构之间的权利与权力关系：第二层次是个人相互之间的权利-权利关系（外化为权利义务关系）和国家或公共机构内部相互之间的权力-权力关系，通常外化为职权、权限与公职义务（责任）之间的关系。
12. Legal relations are faquan relations. In essence they are relations of interests and, in the final analysis, relations of property (even personality rights are sustained and ultimately underpinned by rights in rem). Legal relations comprise two levels. The first level is the rights–powers relation between individuals and public institutions. The second level consists of the rights–rights relations among individuals (externalized as relations of rights and duties) and the powers–powers relations within and between the state or public institutions, usually externalized as relations among official functions and powers, spheres of competence, and official duties (responsibilities).
13.在一国或同一个国家的不同时期，一般说来个人财产的总量决定权利的总量，个人财产在财产总量中的占比决定权利在法权结构中的占比。
13. In a given country, or in different periods of the same country, generally speaking, the total volume of individual property determines the total volume of rights, and the share of individual property in total property determines the share of rights in the faquan structure.
14.同样，属公共机构所有之财产的总量决定权力的总量，公共机构所有之财产在财产总量中的占比决定权力在法权结构中的占比。
14. Likewise, the total volume of property owned by public institutions determines the total volume of powers, and the share of property owned by public institutions in total property determines the share of powers in the faquan structure.
15.显性的最重要法现象是权利、权力，法义务构成它们共同的反面、背面；在法律世界，权利与权力的关系和矛盾是最基本的关系和矛盾，权利相互间的关系、矛盾和权力相互间的关系、矛盾在其次。
15. The most important overt legal phenomena are rights and powers, with legal duties constituting their common negative or reverse side. In the world of law, the relationship and contradiction between rights and powers are the most fundamental relationship and contradiction; the relationships and contradictions among rights themselves, and among powers themselves, come second.
16.权利、权力在法律上虽有多种差别，但它们都是法律承认、保障的利益，归根到底以归属已定之财产为物质依托（人格权最终以物权托底），故两者从根本上看是一个可称为法权的统一体或共同体。
16. Although rights and powers differ in law in many ways, both are interests recognized and safeguarded by law, resting ultimately on property of settled ownership as their material foundation (personality rights are in the end underpinned by rights in rem); fundamentally, therefore, the two form a unity or community that may be called faquan.
17.当代中国的法的一般理论研究应立足中国法律体系、法律实践，兼顾和照应到其他国家的法律发展，首重理论理性，注重寻求基本范畴、基础性命题与当代客观的法现象世界相一致，并以此为前提推进实践理性。
17. In contemporary China, research on the general theory of law should be grounded in China’s legal system and legal practice while giving due regard to legal developments in other countries. It should give first place to theoretical reason, strive to make its basic categories and fundamental propositions consistent with the contemporary, objective world of legal phenomena, and on that premise advance practical reason.
18.应运用马克思从抽象到具体的方法，作为系统地认识法现象世界并将全部认识有序展现开来的根本方法。其中首先将权现象选定为法学的分析起点，得到权这一抽象概念，然后通过权辩证的自我运动，获得由权（英译quan）、法权（faquan）、剩余权（residual quan），权利、权力、义务、法律（或法）共七个概念构成的基本范畴群，进而形成法的完整一般理论。
18. Marx’s method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete should be employed as the fundamental method for systematically understanding the world of legal phenomena and for unfolding the whole of that understanding in an orderly way. First, the phenomenon of quan is selected as the analytical starting point of jurisprudence, yielding the abstract concept of quan; then, through the dialectical self-movement of quan, one obtains a cluster of basic categories consisting of seven concepts in all — quan (权), faquan (法权), residual quan (剩余权), rights, powers, duties, and law — and thereby forms a complete general theory of law.
19.就内容而言，中国法学最抽象的范畴只能是权，核心范畴应是法权，其次是权利、权力、剩余权。这五个基本范畴在指称范围上穷尽了利益、财产在社会规范上的正面表现形式；各种义务穷尽了负性利益内容、负值财产内容的表现形式；权和义务都由社会规范承载，其中法权和法义务由法律承载，后者是社会规范中的强行性部分。
19. As regards content, the most abstract category of Chinese jurisprudence can only be quan; the core category should be faquan, followed by rights, powers, and residual quan. In their scope of reference, these five basic categories exhaust the positive forms in which interests and property manifest themselves in social norms, while obligations of the various kinds exhaust the forms in which negative interests and negative-value property manifest themselves. Both quan and duties are carried by social norms; among these, faquan and legal duties are carried by law, the latter being the mandatory part of social norms.
20.权、法权、剩余权、权利、权力、义务、法律（或法）七个概念从正反两方面穷尽了一国或一社会的利益、财产和它们在包括法律在内的社会规范中的表现形式，为法学对法现象世界做全面利益分析、财产分析奠定了学理基础。法权分析模型和义务分析模型较全面较深入揭示了它们之间及它们体现的社会经济内容之间错综复杂的联系和关系。
20. The seven concepts of quan, faquan, residual quan, rights, powers, duties, and law exhaust, from both the positive and the negative sides, the interests and property of a country or society and the forms in which these manifest themselves in social norms, law included; they thereby lay the theoretical foundation for jurisprudence to carry out a comprehensive interest analysis and property analysis of the world of legal phenomena. The faquan analysis model and the duties analysis model reveal, rather comprehensively and in depth, the intricate connections and relations among them and among the socio-economic contents they embody.
21.以法权和剩余权占比重适当为内容的权结构平衡，以权利和权力占比重适当为内容的法权结构平衡，应该是法治社会、法治国家建设的理想状态；其中的平衡是体量、强度结构综合平衡，可以用几几开（二八开、四六开、五五开等）做通俗的表达。
21. Balance of the quan structure, consisting in appropriate shares of faquan and residual quan, and balance of the faquan structure, consisting in appropriate shares of rights and powers, should be the ideal state for building a law-based society and a law-based state. The balance in question is a composite balance of volume and intensity within the structure, and it may be expressed in everyday terms as a ratio — 20%/80%, 40%/60%, 50%/50%, and so on.
22.权中法权、剩余权所占比重，可分别以法权率、剩余权率在0%-100%间表达；法权率、剩余权率之间是零和关系，此消彼长；0%-100%是理论上可能的两个极端，不大会成为现实；法权率过高，法律会显得苛严，反之则无法可依或无足够法律可依。
22. The shares of faquan and residual quan within quan can be expressed by the faquan rate and the residual-quan rate respectively, each ranging from 0% to 100%. The faquan rate and the residual-quan rate stand in a zero-sum relationship: as one rises, the other falls. The extremes of 0% and 100% are theoretically possible but unlikely to become reality. If the faquan rate is too high, the law will appear harsh and severe; if it is too low, there will be no law to rely on, or not enough law to rely on.
23.法权中权利、权力所占比重，可分别以权利率、权力率在0%-100%间表达；权利率、权力率之间是零和关系，此消彼长；0%-100%是理论上可能的两个极端，不大会成为现实；权利率过高的社会后果是相应程度的无政府状态，权力率过高的社会后果是公共权力过于专断。
23. The shares of rights and powers within faquan can be expressed by the rights rate and the powers rate respectively, each ranging from 0% to 100%. The rights rate and the powers rate stand in a zero-sum relationship: as one rises, the other falls. The extremes of 0% and 100% are theoretically possible but unlikely to become reality. The social consequence of an excessively high rights rate is anarchy of a corresponding degree; the social consequence of an excessively high powers rate is that public power becomes excessively arbitrary.
24.一国或社会适合什么样的权结构、法权结构，视具体发展阶段和具体国家、社会的基本情况而定，没有适合于一切时代和一切国家、社会的权结构、法权结构标准。
24. What quan structure and faquan structure suit a country or society depends on its specific stage of development and on the basic conditions of the particular country or society; there is no standard of the quan structure or the faquan structure that suits all eras and all countries and societies.
25.现代汉语是中国实践的、现实的社会意识，中国法学的基本范畴应以规范、标准的汉语名词表述、承载。力主将以同一汉字名词书写的不同概念，统一于其中那个以规范、标准的汉语名词表述的概念。
25. Modern Chinese is the practical, actual social consciousness of China, and the basic categories of Chinese jurisprudence should be expressed and carried by normative, standard Chinese nouns. I firmly advocate that the different concepts written with one and the same Chinese noun be unified into that one among them which is expressed by the normative, standard Chinese noun.
26.注意到中国法学界近代以来在使用汉字名词权利翻译引进外语对应名词的过程中，已形成亚里士多德所论述过的范畴、概念“同形异义”、乃至同形多义的现状。其间特别值得提及的，是从多义的权利一词中辨识出对我国法学十分有害的、指称范围等于“权利+权力”的和化“权利”概念。长期以来，清末、民国从日语法学引进的和化“权利”与规范、标准的汉语名词竞相运用，且前者在中国法学教科书体系中长期居于主导地位，这种状况应努力改变。
26. It should be noted that, in the course of using the Chinese noun “权利”（rights) to translate and introduce corresponding foreign-language nouns since the modern era, Chinese legal scholarship has arrived at a state of “homonymy” — indeed of polysemy — of categories and concepts, of the kind Aristotle discussed. Particularly worth mentioning here is the identification, within the polysemous word “权利,”of the once-used Japanized concept of “权利”（権利）, whose scope of reference equals “rights + powers” and which is extremely harmful to Chinese legal scholarship. For a long time, the once-used Japanized “权利”, introduced from Japanese legal scholarship in the late Qing and he period of the Republic of China has competed in use with the normative, standard Chinese noun, and the former has long held the dominant position in China’s system of jurisprudence textbooks. Great efforts should be made to change this state of affairs.
27.认识到当代中国法学在学术上最大的弊端和发展隐患，是继续沿用指称范围涵盖各种权力的和化“权利”（早年在日本书写为“權利”，20世纪中叶后写作“権利”，进入汉语法学后自然也简写为“权利”）概念。含义等于“权利+权力”的和化“权利”，早已被日语法学废弃，而我国法律体系、官方权威性文献从来不使用它，但我国法理学教科书仍在广泛使用。和化“权利”应从我国法学教科书中彻底剔除。
27. It should be recognized that the greatest academic defect of, and hidden danger to the development of, contemporary Chinese jurisprudence is the continued use of the once-used Japanized concept of “权利”, whose scope of reference covers powers of every kind (written in Japan as “權利” in earlier years and as 権利 after the mid-twentieth century, and naturally simplified to “权利” after entering Chinese-language legal scholarship). The once-used Japanized “权利”, whose meaning equals “rights + powers”, was abandoned by the once-used Japanese legal scholarship long ago, and China’s legal system and authoritative official documents have never used it; yet it is still widely used in China’s jurisprudence textbooks. The once-used Japanized “权利” should be thoroughly removed from China’s jurisprudence textbooks.
28.权是中华民族历数千年积累才终于在当代形成的独有、特有的优质名词资源，可以和必将成为民族的、现代的中国法学的标志性概念；从法学角度看，权和由权直接衍生的法权、剩余权，客观上已成为现代汉语法学独特而最为宝贵的概念（或范畴）资源。
28. Quan is a superior noun resource unique and particular to the Chinese nation, formed at last in the present era out of several thousand years of accumulation; it can and surely will become the signature concept of a national and modern Chinese jurisprudence. From the standpoint of legal scholarship, quan, together with faquan and residual quan directly derived from it, has objectively become the most distinctive and most precious conceptual (or categorial) resource of modern Chinese-language jurisprudence.
29.近半个世纪以来，中国法学在核心话语方面没能取得进步的最大的教训，是一些法学家把清末、民国时期法学入门型教科书视为“通说”的一些观点，在未说明出处的情况下作为自己的新学说提出来后，又动用一切可用资源倾全力加以维护。这就造成了看起来是维护改革开放后的法学新观点新见解，实际维护的却是清末、民国诸多《法学通论》讲授的核心话语的尴尬局面。
29. The greatest lesson to be drawn from Chinese jurisprudence’s failure to make progress in its core discourse over the past half century is this: certain legal scholars took views that the introductory jurisprudence textbooks of the late Qing and the period of the Republic of China treated as “received doctrine”, put them forward as their own new theories without indicating their sources, and then mobilized every available resource to defend them with all their might. The result is the awkward situation in which what appears to be a defense of new jurisprudential views and insights formed after reform and opening up is in fact a defense of the core discourse taught in the many General Introductions to General Introductions to Jurisprudence (Faxue Tonglun) of the late Qing and the period of the Republic of China.
30.法理学作品价值之有无和高低，取决于它们同当代中国法现象世界相符合的程度和能够直接间接为中国所用的程度；脱离中国法律生活实际，很少甚至不能为中国所用的东西，都是低价值乃至无价值的。
30. Whether works of legal theory have value, and how much, depends on the degree to which they accord with the contemporary Chinese world of legal phenomena and on the degree to which they can be put to direct or indirect use in China. Whatever is divorced from the realities of Chinese legal life and is of little or even no use to China is of low value or of no value at all.
31.当代各种法的“本位”论，尤其是“权利本位”论，都是沿袭自19世纪末、20世纪初穂积陈重、穗积重远父子的日语法学著作或其汉译版本，包括“权利本位”论、“义务本位”论，“社会本位”论，特别是主张“法律以权利为本位”的“权利本位”论。这些说法严重脱离当代中国法律体系和法律实践，日语法学本身已经弃之近百年，中国法学原本就不该检拾这类别国丢弃的旧说。
31. The various contemporary theories of the basis for law — above all “the rights-based theory” — are all inherited from the Japanese-language legal works of Hozumi Nobushige and his son Hozumi Shigeto at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, or from the Chinese translations of those works; they include the “the rights-based theory”, the “the duty-based theory ” , and “the society-based theory”, and especially “the rights-based theory”, which claims that “law takes rights as its basis”. These doctrines are gravely divorced from the contemporary Chinese legal system and legal practice; Japanese legal scholarship itself discarded them nearly a century ago, and Chinese jurisprudence should never have picked up such old doctrines discarded by another country.
32.如果一定要在法律体系、法制体系中设定中心，那个中心就应该是法权。法权中心的实质内容是国民利益中心和国民财产中心，包括个人的和国家两个部分，体现了个人和国家两端兼顾的要求，以及个人、国家两端利益之和、两端财产之和的地位超越其中任何一端的正当性。
32. If a center must be posited in the legal system and the system of legal institutions, that center should be faquan. The substance of the faquan center is a center of the nation’s interests and of the nation’s property, comprising two parts — that of individuals and that of the state. It embodies the requirement that both ends, the individual and the state, be given due regard, and the legitimacy of placing the sum of the interests, and the sum of the property, of the two ends in a position above either end taken alone.
33.法权曲线以数理形式从权力、权利、法权现象到利益、财产三个层次上表明，权力也好，权利也好，其在法权中所占的比例只有在一定范围内增长才具有合理性，超过了某个限度就会与相关行为主体的愿望相违背，既减损法权发展前景，也从根本上减损权力或权利本身。
33. The faquan curve shows in mathematical form, at three levels — the phenomena of powers, rights, and faquan; interests; and property — that the share of powers, or of rights, in faquan is reasonable only when it grows within a certain range. Beyond a certain limit, such growth runs counter to the wishes of the very actors concerned: it diminishes the prospects for the development of faquan, and it fundamentally diminishes powers or rights themselves.
34.权的体量、结构公理：在存在法律的社会，权的体量与财产总量成正比；故权的总量可变，其构成单元权力、权利、剩余权的体量及所占比例亦可改变，但权由此三部分組成之结构永远不会变。
34. The axiom of the volume and structure of quan: in a society where law exists, the volume of quan is directly proportional to the total volume of property. Hence the total volume of quan is variable, and the volumes and relative shares of its constituent units — powers, rights, and residual quan — can also change; but the structure whereby quan is composed of these three parts will never change.
35.义务的体量、结构公理：在存在法律的社会，义务的体量与负值财产总量成正比；义务的总量可变，其构成单元公职义务、个人义务、法外义务的体量及所占比例亦可改变,但义务由此三部分組成的结构永远不会变。
35. The axiom of the volume and structure of duties: in a society where law exists, the volume of duties is directly proportional to the total volume of negative-value property. The total volume of duties is variable, and the volumes and relative shares of its constituent units — official duties, individual duties, and extra-legal duties — can also change; but the structure whereby duties are composed of these three parts will never change.
36.在中国，以权、法权、剩余权、权利、权力为主要标识的民族的、现代的法学，同实际上基于清末、民国《法学通论》记载的各种“通说”为主要标识的传统法学之间竞争会是长期的。这虽是朝阳与落日的竞争，但决出结果需要时间。清末、民国“通说”主要是和化“权利”论和基于和化“权利”的“法学是权利之学”“法学是权利义务之学”论。
36. In China, the competition between the national, modern jurisprudence marked chiefly by quan, faquan, residual quan, rights, and powers, and the traditional jurisprudence marked chiefly by the various “received doctrines” in fact based on the General Introductions to Jurisprudence of the late Qing and the period of the Republic of China, will be a long-term one. Although this is a competition between the rising sun and the setting sun, deciding the outcome will take time. The late Qing and the period of the Republic of China “received doctrines” consist mainly of the once-used Japanized “权利” theory and, built upon the once-used Japanized concept of “权利”, the theses that “jurisprudence is the science of rights” and that “jurisprudence is the science of rights and duties”.
37.法权说可形成国内法版和国际法版，国际法版由国内法版转换而成。法权说国内法版向国际法版转换的进路可归纳为：权利主体由公民、个人转换为国家和实体性国际组织；权力主体由国内法上的国家机构转换为国际组织中能制定和实施强行性国际行为规范的内设机构。
37. The faquan theory can take a domestic-law version and an international-law version, the international-law version being derived by transformation from the domestic-law version. The path of transformation from the domestic-law version to the international-law version may be summarized as follows: the subjects of rights change from citizens and individuals into states and substantive international organizations; the subjects of powers change from the state institutions of domestic law into those internal organs of international organizations that are capable of enacting and enforcing mandatory international norms of conduct.
38.在没有制定和实施强行性国际行为规范的时代没有国际法，相关行为规范即使被称为国际法，实质上也只是国际道义准则；在没有国际法的时代，国家等行为主体只享有自然法意义的国际自然权利，但国际自然权利也有与其物质基础相当的体量和强度，这种体量和强度过去往往被误认为是国际“权力”。
38. In an age in which no mandatory international norms of conduct were enacted and enforced, there was no international law; even if the relevant norms of conduct were called international law, they were in substance merely precepts of international morality. In an age without international law, states and other actors enjoyed only international natural rights in the sense of natural law; yet international natural rights, too, had a volume and an intensity commensurate with their material basis, and this volume and intensity were in the past often mistaken for international “power”.
39.有国际法才有国际法上的权利、权力和义务；国际法主体的权利，是其拥有的财产（或财富）和对应利益在国际法上的呈现形式；一国国民财产的体量决定一国国际法权利的体量；在国际法权利体量一定的情况下，支撑它的国民财产的集中运用程度决定国际法权利的强度；国际组织中内设机构集中自主运用预算支出的体量决定国际法权力的体量，在体量同等情况下预算资源运用的集中程度决定国际法权力的强度。
39. Only where there is international law are there rights, powers, and duties under international law. The rights of a subject of international law are the form in which the property (or wealth) it possesses, and the corresponding interests, present themselves in international law. The volume of a country’s national property determines the volume of that country’s rights under international law; where the volume of those rights is given, the degree of concentration with which the national property supporting them is deployed determines their intensity. The volume of budgetary expenditure that an internal organ of an international organization deploys in a concentrated and autonomous manner determines the volume of international-law power; where volumes are equal, the degree of concentration in the use of budgetary resources determines the intensity of international-law power.
40.国际法权利、国际法权力构成国际法法权；国际法权利、国际法权力和国际法法权的体量、强度都是可变的，它们与对应的财产（财富）的体量、集中运用程度同频增减；在特定的时间点上，国际法法权可以也应该被视为一个常量，其中的国际法权利与国际法权力之间是零和关系；国际法法权的反面是国际法义务，它是相应负利益、负值财产在国际法上的表现形式。
40. International-law rights and international-law powers together constitute international-law faquan. The volumes and intensities of international-law rights, of international-law powers, and of international-law faquan are all variable; they increase and decrease in step with the volume, and the degree of concentrated deployment, of the corresponding property (wealth). At a particular point in time, international-law faquan can and should be regarded as a constant, within which international-law rights and international-law powers stand in a zero-sum relationship. The reverse side of international-law faquan is international-law duty, which is the form in which the corresponding negative interests and negative-value property manifest themselves in international law.
41.人类社会健康发展、国际和平与安全，都要求有相对平衡的国际法法权结构；当代和可以预见的未来，国际法法权结构中国际法权力的体量、强度过小和国际法权利体量、强度过大的严重不平衡的状况难以明显改善。
41. The healthy development of human society and international peace and security alike require a relatively balanced international-law faquan structure. At present, and in the foreseeable future, the gravely unbalanced situation of the international-law faquan structure — in which the volume and intensity of international-law power are too small while the volume and intensity of international-law rights are too great — can hardly be improved to any marked degree.
42.国际法法权结构中的国际法权力占有率与国际和平、安全状况受国际法法权曲线主导；国际法法权结构中的国际法权力率为0%时，国际法权利率为100%，此种极端状况表明国际社会处于无政府状态；反之，则表明国际社会处于某种世界政府的绝对专制统治下；人类社会健康发展、国际和平与安全，都需要一种与其发展状况相适应的国际法法权结构。
42. The share of international-law power in the international faquan structure, together with the state of international peace and security, is governed by the international faquan curve. When the rate of international-law power in the international faquan structure is 0%, the rate of international-law rights is 100%; this extreme situation means that international society is in a state of anarchy. The opposite extreme would mean that international society is under the absolute despotic rule of some world government. The healthy development of human society and international peace and security both require an international-law faquan structure appropriate to the state of their development.
43.当代国际社会对和平与安全的威胁有两个：一是国际法主体间的国际法权利的体量从而国际法权利的强度严重不平衡；二是程度过高且难以改变的国际社会无政府状态，这种状态与国际法权力体量过小、强度过低有关。
43. Contemporary international society faces two threats to peace and security. The first is the grave imbalance among the subjects of international law in the volume, and consequently in the intensity, of their international-law rights. The second is the excessively high and hard-to-change degree of anarchy in international society, a condition connected with the excessively small volume and excessively low intensity of international-law power.
附件，童之伟十年来出版的书目：
Appendix: Books Published by Tong Zhiwei over the Past Decade:
1.《实践法理学：权利、权力与法权说》，中国社会科学出版社2024年版（2025年已出修改版）；
1. Practical Jurisprudence: Rights, Powers, and Faquanism, China Social Sciences Press, 2024 (revised edition published in 2025);
2.《实践法理学的现象解释体系》，中国社会科学出版社2024年版（2025年已出修改版）；
2. The Interpretative Framework of Practical Jurisprudence, China Social Sciences Press, 2024 (revised edition published in 2025);
3.《法权说之应用》，中国社会科学出版社，2022年版；
3. Applications of Faquanism, China Social Sciences Press, 2022;
4.《中国立宪主义道路求索》，香港城市大学出版社2022年版；
4. The Road to Constitutionalism in China, City University of Hong Kong Press, 2022;
5.Right, Power, and Faquanism：A Practical Legal Theory from Contemporary China,trans.Xu Ping,Leiden & Boston,Brill Academic Publishers，2018;
6.《宪法与部门法关系管窥》，法律出版社2017年版；
6. A Glimpse into the Relations between the Constitution and the Branches of Law, Law Press China, 2017;
7.《中国宪制之维新》，香港城市大学出版社2016年版。
7. The Constitutional Reform in Contemporary China, City University of Hong Kong Press, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment