我国人格法益保护模式之选择与完善——基于比较法模式评析视角
|
摘要
比较法上的人格法益保护模式主要包括侵权法不区分式、侵权法区分式、一般人格权、"人格"与人格权概括保护、框架权性质的具体人格权等五种模式。上述模式在我国现行法律规范中皆有体现。侵权法不区分式缺乏对人格法益侵害的违法性要件认定;一般人格权存在逻辑与结构上的问题;框架权性质的具体人格权不符合我国法制实情。我国应当采用侵权法区分式加人格权概括保护的模式;次优是对《侵权责任法》第6条过错责任进行解释,将其分为主观的过错与客观的违法性两方面。在此基础之上,还应当从明确人格法益概念、补强侵害要件、控制援引内容等方面,持续完善我国的人格法益保护。
There are 5 major protection modes for personality rights and interests from the perspective of the comparative law,namely Tort Law indistinguishable,Tort Law distinguishable,general personality rights, "personality" and generalized protection of personality rights,and framework concrete personality rights.All of them are reflected in China's existing laws and regulations.Tort Law indistinguishable mode lacks the identification of constructive elements for infringement of personality's legal interests.The second mode based on general personality rights has logical and structural issues.And the third mode focusing on framework concrete personality rights is inconsistent with legal situations in our country.The combined mode of Tort Law distinguishable and generalized protection of personality rights should be adopted.On the basis of that,the concept of personality rights and interests,reinforcing constructive elements for illegality,and controlling cited contents and so on shall be clarified to keep improving the protection of personality rights and interests.
There are 5 major protection modes for personality rights and interests from the perspective of the comparative law,namely Tort Law indistinguishable,Tort Law distinguishable,general personality rights, "personality" and generalized protection of personality rights,and framework concrete personality rights.All of them are reflected in China's existing laws and regulations.Tort Law indistinguishable mode lacks the identification of constructive elements for infringement of personality's legal interests.The second mode based on general personality rights has logical and structural issues.And the third mode focusing on framework concrete personality rights is inconsistent with legal situations in our country.The combined mode of Tort Law distinguishable and generalized protection of personality rights should be adopted.On the basis of that,the concept of personality rights and interests,reinforcing constructive elements for illegality,and controlling cited contents and so on shall be clarified to keep improving the protection of personality rights and interests.
引文
[1]王泽鉴.人格权法:法释义学、比较法、案例研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013.
[2]冉克平.一般人格权理论的反思与我国人格权立法[J].法学,2009(8):133-144.
[3]程啸.侵权责任法[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.
[4]王泽鉴.侵权行为[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2016.
[5]于飞.违背善良风俗故意致人损害与纯粹经济损失保护[J].法学研究,2012(4):43-60.
[6]张红.人格权总论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
[7]王利明.隐私权概念再界定[J].法学家,2012(2):108-120.
[8] Peter L.Felcher,Edward L.Rubin.Privacy,Publicity,and the Portrayal of Real People by the Media[M].Yale L.J,1979.
[9] David R.Ginsburg.Transfer of the Right of Publicity:Dracula’s Progeny and Privacy’s Stepchid[M].Columbia University Press,1980.
[10]Michael henry.International Privacy,Publicity and Personality Laws[M].London:Butterworth,2001.
[11]于飞.公序良俗原则研究——以基本原则的具体化为中心[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[12]梁慧星.民法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[13]王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[14]尹田.论一般人格权[J].法律科学,2002(4):11-18.
[15]尹田.论人格权独立成编的理论漏洞[J].法学杂志,2007(5):7-11.
[16]熊谞龙.权利,抑或法益?——一般人格权本质的再讨论[J].比较法研究,2005(2):51-57.
[17][德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁晓春,吴越,译.北京:法制出版社,2013.
[18][美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[19]于敏.日本侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[20][德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[21]黄茂荣.法学方法与现代民法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
(1)如对“过错”的法律规定及相关学理阐释为裁判者提供了过错的判断标准,裁判者虽然在案件中要对过错的情形进行具体认定,每个案件的情节及轻重各有不同,过错的程度和形式都不同,但都不能偏离立法者的设立过错的初衷,自创一种“过错”形式出来。
(2)“违法性”在有的国家不是侵权行为的构成要件,而被“过错”这一要件吸纳。因而,在这些国家针对侵害人格法益行为违法性的要件的明确,也就是过错要件的明确。我国是否采纳“违法性”要件理论上存在争议,但至少在现行的《侵权责任法》规定中,并没有明确指出侵权行为必须具备违法性这一要件。
[2]冉克平.一般人格权理论的反思与我国人格权立法[J].法学,2009(8):133-144.
[3]程啸.侵权责任法[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.
[4]王泽鉴.侵权行为[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2016.
[5]于飞.违背善良风俗故意致人损害与纯粹经济损失保护[J].法学研究,2012(4):43-60.
[6]张红.人格权总论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
[7]王利明.隐私权概念再界定[J].法学家,2012(2):108-120.
[8] Peter L.Felcher,Edward L.Rubin.Privacy,Publicity,and the Portrayal of Real People by the Media[M].Yale L.J,1979.
[9] David R.Ginsburg.Transfer of the Right of Publicity:Dracula’s Progeny and Privacy’s Stepchid[M].Columbia University Press,1980.
[10]Michael henry.International Privacy,Publicity and Personality Laws[M].London:Butterworth,2001.
[11]于飞.公序良俗原则研究——以基本原则的具体化为中心[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[12]梁慧星.民法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[13]王利明.人格权法研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[14]尹田.论一般人格权[J].法律科学,2002(4):11-18.
[15]尹田.论人格权独立成编的理论漏洞[J].法学杂志,2007(5):7-11.
[16]熊谞龙.权利,抑或法益?——一般人格权本质的再讨论[J].比较法研究,2005(2):51-57.
[17][德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁晓春,吴越,译.北京:法制出版社,2013.
[18][美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[19]于敏.日本侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[20][德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[21]黄茂荣.法学方法与现代民法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
(1)如对“过错”的法律规定及相关学理阐释为裁判者提供了过错的判断标准,裁判者虽然在案件中要对过错的情形进行具体认定,每个案件的情节及轻重各有不同,过错的程度和形式都不同,但都不能偏离立法者的设立过错的初衷,自创一种“过错”形式出来。
(2)“违法性”在有的国家不是侵权行为的构成要件,而被“过错”这一要件吸纳。因而,在这些国家针对侵害人格法益行为违法性的要件的明确,也就是过错要件的明确。我国是否采纳“违法性”要件理论上存在争议,但至少在现行的《侵权责任法》规定中,并没有明确指出侵权行为必须具备违法性这一要件。