The study of legal history in China suffers from a lack of deep engagement with normativi-ty,which may lead it to two extremes:on one hand,anachronistically applying methodologies of modern legal dogmatics to analyze pre-modern law;on the other hand,avoiding discussions of normativity by re-treating into the traditions of literature,historiography,or social sciences.Consequently,addressing the dichotomy between"facts and norms"becomes an essential issue for legal history studies.From the per-spective of normativity,the knowledge system of legal history can initially be understood as a fundamen-tal framework constructed through a dual differentiation of"external—internal"and"general—sectoral"dimensions.Furthermore,it can be seen as comprising a spectrum of knowledge that includes six levels of analysis,ranging from micro to macro perspectives.A lack of awareness of this basic framework,as well as a deficiency in attention to certain levels within this knowledge spectrum,could potentially lead legal history studies in China into a state of fragmentation and isolation.The key to reversing this passive situation lies in enhancing the epistemological level of legal history studies in China,particularly by em-phasizing the significance of normative thinking in modern jurisprudence for the study of legal history.
Legal HistoryNormativityInternal Legal HistoryExternal Legal HistoryGeneral Legal History
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
