CAJ | 학술논문

1907年大清刑律草案签注是研究《大清刑律》和“礼法之争”不可或缺的重要资料。本文利用诸多历史文献，对1908--1909年之间，中央部院、地方督抚的签注做了系统梳理，考证其文献来源、整理要点、上呈过程和表现形式，澄清以往研究中不清楚甚至错误的地方，辨析了签注的形成过程及其中的倾向性意见，分析了签注在《大清刑律》制定中影响和作用有限的原因。1907年大清刑律草案作为沈家本在法律领域贯彻“思想革命”的代表作，其得失是与政治领域的立宪运动同步的，由签注所引发的“礼法之争”的本质不是中西、新旧之争，而是法律领域“改良还是革命”的“主义”之争。1907年大清刑律草案既与中国自身的状况相脱节，也不符合法律自身的演进规律，是一次有着严重缺陷的立法实践。
1907년대청형률초안첨주시연구《대청형률》화“례법지쟁”불가혹결적중요자료。본문이용제다역사문헌，대1908--1909년지간，중앙부원、지방독무적첨주주료계통소리，고증기문헌래원、정리요점、상정과정화표현형식，징청이왕연구중불청초심지착오적지방，변석료첨주적형성과정급기중적경향성의견，분석료첨주재《대청형률》제정중영향화작용유한적원인。1907년대청형률초안작위침가본재법률영역관철“사상혁명”적대표작，기득실시여정치영역적립헌운동동보적，유첨주소인발적“례법지쟁”적본질불시중서、신구지쟁，이시법률영역“개량환시혁명”적“주의”지쟁。1907년대청형률초안기여중국자신적상황상탈절，야불부합법률자신적연진규률，시일차유착엄중결함적입법실천。
The endorsements on the Draft Criminal Code of Qing Dynasty in 1907 are among the key materials for the study of the New Criminal Code of Qing Dynasty and the controversy over rites and law in late Qing Dynasty. Based on many historical documents, this paper presents a comprehensive study on the endorsements on the Draft Criminal Code of Qing Dynasty. It systematically sorts out the endorsements on the draft law by ministers in the central government and local governors between 1908 to 1909, conducts textual researches on their source of literature, main points, process of pres- entation, and forms of manifestation, clarifies some confusions and corrects some mistakes in the past research on them, and analyzes the process of formation of these endorsements. In addition, it analyzes the reasons for the limited effects and role of these endorsements in the formulation of the New Criminal Code of Qing Dynasty. As a representative work of Shen Jiaben＇ s ＂ideology revolution＂ in the field of law, the formulation of the 1907 Draft Criminal Code synchronized with the constitutional movement in the political field at that time. The controversy over rites and law triggered by the endorsements was in essence a controversy over ＂improvement or revolution＂, rather than ＂Chinese or West＂ or ＂the New or the Old＂. The Draft Criminal Code of Qing Dynasty in 1907 was a seriously flawed legislative practice because it was both divorced from the actual conditions in China and incompatible with the rules of development of law itself.