莫里茨·拜尔茨(Moritz Baelz):法律东方主义

发布者:法学院新闻中心发布时间:2018-09-10浏览次数:48

讲座主题:法律东方主义

时间:921号(周五)1900-2100

地点:文治五楼会议室

主讲人:德国法兰克福大学法学院 莫里茨·拜尔茨(Moritz Baelz)教授

主持人:张青波 副教授

(讲座语言为英文)

主讲人简介:1969年生,先后就读于柏林自由大学、哈佛大学、汉堡大学,1998年通过德国第一次国家法律考试,2000年通过德国第二次国家法律考试,2002年获哈佛大学法学硕士和纽约州律师执照,2005年获汉堡大学法学博士,2005-2008年任职于英国富而德律师事务所,2008年至今任法兰克福大学法学院日本法教席教授,2015年至今任法兰克福大学国际和欧洲私法及比较法研究所所长,兼任德国学术期刊《日本法》和东亚私法文丛编委,德国大学学习奖学金和德国学术交流中心(DAAD)奖学金评委。研究领域为民商法、比较法,曾多次赴日本东京大学、京都大学、东北大学等校担任访问教授。

Abstract: American legal scholar Teemu Ruskola’s theory on ‘legal orientalism’ has drawn significant attention in recent years. Developing on Edward W. Said’s famous critique of Western discourses on the Orient, Ruskola examines how Western, in particular US discourses on Chinese law tend to construct Chinese law as the counterpart of Western law. Often this has resulted in a negative image of Chinese law as static, collectivistic, despotic if not even as ‘non-law’, but at times Chinese law also has been portrayed as an ideal to be emulated by the West. Of course, constructing one-self by constructing the other is by no means limited to Western observers. Even’self-orientalism’ as it is a familiar concept in cultural studies, finds it equivalent in legal discourses. This presentation, based on a critical assessment of Ruscola’s theory, looks into the implications of such concept for the understanding of East Asian law. Therefore, it is not the aim to assess or correct Western notions of Chinese law, a task for which others would be much better qualified. As Ruskola pointedly states, legal orientalism tells the Western observer more about Western notions of law than about Chinese law in China. My focus will be on the conclusions which we should draw from legal orientalism for how we study East Asian law in the West. The aim cannot be to offer an escape from legal orientalism or from the restrictions of having a Western perspective. However, for a mutual understanding between East and West raising awareness about our conditions of understanding and thus minimizing the risks of distorting essentialization seem essential even in the field of law.