On October 19th, the 39th lecture of the BNU Lecture Series, titled "Legal Interpretation Methods and Their Application in the Civil Code," was successfully conducted in Room 201 of Teaching Building 2 at Beijing Normal University. The lecture was delivered by Professor Yang Daixiong, a doctoral supervisor from the School of Law at East China University of Political Science and Law. The panel discussion featured scholars: Associate Professor Miao Yu from the School of Civil, Commercial and Economic Law at China University of Political Science and Law, Associate Professor Xu Jiangang from the School of Law at Central University of Finance and Economics, and Lecturer Yang Xu from the Law School of Beijing Normal University. Zeng Jian, Editor in Chief of Maidu Culture, was a special guest at the event. The lecture was moderated by Professor Yuan Zhijie from the Law School of Beijing Normal University, attracting an enthusiastic participation of over a hundred students.

At the outset of his lecture, Professor Yang Daixiong emphasized the significance he places on imparting the fundamental principles of civil law methodology in his teachings. He stated that his approach involves not only introducing the core principles of this methodology but also intertwining them with the provisions of the Civil Code and real-life case studies. This lecture, too, would adhere to this methodology, commencing with the objectives of legal interpretation and translating them into the framework of legal interpretation techniques and their practical applications.

In the initial segment of the lecture, Professor Yang Daixiong delved into the historical debate surrounding "subjectivism" versus "objectivism" within the realm of legal interpretation. These two schools of thought are characterized by their respective beliefs: one advocates for the pursuit of the historical legislators' subjective intentions, while the other focuses on uncovering the contemporary relevance of the law. Moreover, he introduced the modern mainstream compromise theory, which synthesizes both subjective and objective perspectives in legal interpretation.

Building upon this foundation, Professor Yang Daixiong contended that the objective of legal interpretation should be established from the standpoint of power distribution, suggesting that it should align with a pure objectivist stance. The rationale for this perspective is rooted in the principles and ideals of a rule-of-law society, as well as in the interplay between legislation and the judiciary. Since the intent of legislators is fixed at a specific point in history, the judiciary should exercise its regulatory authority through legal interpretation, endowing legal norms with appropriate meaning to supply the public with norms. Effectively, this mirrors the interpretation of legal acts, where the significance of legal norms need only correspond to the hypothetical intent of contemporary legislators, and historical interpretations should be invoked only when they align with this contemporary meaning. The principle distinguishing between changes in property rights and causal acts in Article 215 of the Civil Code exemplifies this approach.

In the second part of his lecture, Professor Yang Daixiong delved into the theoretical underpinnings of legal interpretation methods and elucidated the system of these methods, which include contextual, systematic, historical, teleological, natural, and purposive interpretations. He reevaluated the roles of historical, natural, and purposive interpretations, underscoring the notion that historical interpretation should be deprecated, and that teleological and natural interpretations are integral legal interpretation methods, not merely continuative ones. Subsequently, he provided a detailed exposition of the framework and application techniques of teleological and natural interpretations, articulating the logical and value criteria for teleological interpretation. Utilizing Article 405 of the Civil Code as a case study, he demonstrated the process of conducting a teleological interpretation. Regarding natural interpretation, he noted its origins in the Tang Dynasty and cited specific provisions from the Tang Code that embody this method. Professor Yang highlighted the primacy of certainty over teleological interpretation and illustrated this with an example involving the relationship between the transfer of partnership shares and the assumption of debt liability in Articles 22 and 23 of the Partnership Enterprise Law, demonstrating how to apply a natural interpretation to Article 44 of the same law.

In the concluding segment of his lecture, Professor Yang Daixiong provided a nuanced demonstration of the practical application of various interpretation methods. He offered a strict constructionist interpretation of Article 525 of the Civil Code, elucidating that "the other party's performance" should be understood as the other party having already effected a payment; otherwise, interpreting it otherwise would effectively compel the other party to fulfill their obligations first, potentially leading to a deadlock in performance. He then delved into the semantics of Article 392 of the Civil Code, distinguishing the guarantee content referenced in different clauses, and concluded that the pronoun "this" in the second clause specifically denotes the debtor's collateral as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, Professor Yang conducted a comparative analysis of Article 225 of the Civil Code with other legal provisions, particularly Articles 224 and 403, to substantiate that the recognition of changes in special movable property rights under Article 225 should be grounded in the "delivery effectiveness plus registration confrontation" model. He also ascertained the objective purpose of Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, aiming to reconcile discrepancies between the text and the legal system. Amidst varying interpretations, he ultimately concluded that the 10% liability limit stipulated in the third clause of the second item of the first paragraph of Article 76 should be interpreted as applying under the condition of "no fault on the part of the vehicle owner combined with fault on the part of the pedestrian."

Panel discussion session

In the panel discussion segment, Associate Professor Miao Yu contributed his insights regarding the application of legal interpretation methods. He posited that the objective of legal interpretation should be grounded in objectivism, yet there are instances where he might draw upon historical sources, such as the opinions of the Legal Affairs Commission, to bolster his arguments. Concerning the concept of negative interpretation, he concurred with Professor Yang Daixiong's perspective that it is a valid legal interpretation method in the Chinese context. Despite the occasional absence of explicit provisions in the law, this does not imply legislative silence; rather, legislators often implicitly state their stance, thereby precluding the existence of legal loopholes. He cited Articles 226, 227, 228, 460, 461, and Article 196(2) of the Civil Code as instances where negative interpretation is applicable. Illustrating with the relationship between Article 580(1)(3) and Article 192(1) of the Civil Code, Associate Professor Miao Yu highlighted that the application of interpretation inherently involves value judgments, and the act of interpretation is itself an evaluative process. Regarding the interpretation of textual meaning, influenced by Professor Yang Daixiong's repeated emphasis on the core and peripheral aspects of meaning, he suggested that the interpretation can be categorized into three realms: affirmative candidates, neutral candidates, and negative candidates, allowing for both limited and expansive interpretations. Moreover, Associate Professor Miao Yu further exemplified the application of legal interpretation methods through the examination of additional provisions within the Civil Code.

Associate Professor Xu Jiangang used the example of Tai Chi created by Zhang Sanfeng in Jin Yong's novel to point out that the best martial arts teaching is "meaning", not just "form". The martial arts of legal interpretation mentioned in Professor Yang Daixiong's lecture belong to the superior teaching of "meaning" in law. The written law always faces the shortcoming of lagging behind, and the development and application of legal interpretation methods are the key to making up for this deficiency. He strongly agrees with Professor Yang's main viewpoint and argument, believing that objective purpose interpretation as the ultimate standard is the "nuclear weapon" of legal interpretation. Regarding whether the method of historical interpretation should be abandoned, he believes that the purpose of legislators is not clear at a glance. Historical interpretation, like textual interpretation and systematic interpretation, plays a role in exploring the purpose of legislators. Although it may not play a decisive role in the outcome, exploring the purpose of legislators through historical interpretation also plays an important role in the process of legal interpretation. Finally, Associate Professor Xu Jiangang pointed out that there is a distinction between subjective and objective purposes in the application order of purpose interpretation. The premise for the application of objective purposes is that the conclusion of subjective purpose interpretation is not appropriate. At this time, it is necessary to stand on the position of a "rational legislator" to determine the objective purpose and interpret and apply the law accordingly. It should be noted that for legal interpreters, the burden of argumentation for these two methods is different. If subjective purposes are applied, it is only necessary to ascertain the true intentions of legislators in history, which is mainly determined through the sorting of legislative materials, without the need to judge whether the intentions of legislators are reasonable; If an objective purpose is to be applied, there needs to be a sufficient process of reasoning and argumentation. Only when the rationality of the objective purpose can be proven on the balance of interests, can the subjective purpose be abandoned and the purposive basis of legal interpretation and application of the objective purpose be applied.

Mr. Yang Xu contributed three key reflections on the lecture. Firstly, he noted that the subject of methodology inherently involves a delicate dance between abstraction and concreteness. Professor Yang Daixiong exemplifies a rigorous academic approach, infused with wisdom and imagination, as he delves into the exploration of various textual meanings, recognizing that the essence of each problem lies in these multiple interpretations. Secondly, regarding the foundational stance on legal interpretation, Professor Yang Daixiong is dedicated to bridging the gap between the methodological realms of legal action interpretation and legal interpretation itself, illustrating that interdisciplinary research can yield enhanced outcomes with relative efficiency. Thirdly, Mr. Yang Xu commended Professor Yang Daixiong for the extensive use of examples throughout his explanation, each bolstered by at least one scholarly article, which he believes needs a thorough examination from the perspective of legal methodology. Furthermore, Yang Xu shared his perspectives on the interpretation of the Civil Code, particularly Article 392. On one hand, he suggested that the so-called natural interpretation might, at times, extend beyond the boundaries of the normative text, thereby contributing to the continuation or development of the law. On the other hand, if the first clause of the initial sentence of Article 392 is interpreted as a general requirement for the entire sentence, the subsequent clauses would then impose additional stipulations, thereby constructing a comprehensive rule that governs the interplay between property protection and personal protection.

Zeng Jian, editor in chief of Maidu Culture, delivered a speech as a special guest. He said that the work of an editor also needs to be explained. In response to the inconsistency between the author's meaning and expression, the editor's task is to figure out whether what needs to be modified is the meaning or the expression. This is particularly evident in the context of translation, as translators need to clarify the author's meaning. Sometimes translators themselves may not fully understand the text, resulting in only literal translation and ultimately vague sentences and meanings. During his collaboration with Mr. Yang, all of Mr. Yang’s expressions were very clear and accurate, which is particularly worth learning for every author and translator. Finally, Zeng Jian emphasized the importance of methodological learning. Methods are tools that ultimately serve practical problems. He hopes that all students present can learn from Mr. Yang's methods and apply them to practice.

Professor Yuan Zhijie, the session's moderator, also interjected his own perspectives and reflections. He noted that while there are indeed challenges in employing historical explanations due to a variety of reasons, it is not insurmountable to harness their explanatory utility. The current legal provisions and their intents do not remain static in history; rather, the legislative will is continually evolving, particularly during the process of codification revision. The endurance of past legal norms to the present day is a testament to legislators' acknowledgment of the rule's ongoing relevance. In parallel, drawing from Professor Yang Daixiong's systematic interpretation of Articles 224 and 225 of the Civil Code, Professor Yuan Zhijie introduced an alternative analytical framework. He suggested that the interpretation could also be conducted within a more abstract systemic context. By applying the "delivery effectiveness plus registration confrontation" model to the alteration of special movable property rights, and contrasting it with the real estate rights change model, one can discern that the construct of movable property is more intricate than the straightforward registration principle governing real estate. The resistance to the conclusion, he argued, arises from the blurred lines between public and private law in China, where the motor vehicle registration book assumes a private law function beyond its intended scope. In reality, the alteration of property rights and the effectiveness of motor vehicles should still adhere to the most fundamental principle of delivery.

Finally, the students enthusiastically asked questions to Professor Yang Daixiong and received detailed answers and signed gift books from Professor Yang.

The lecture concluded to the sound of enthusiastic applause from both students and faculty, marking a successful event!