本文關(guān)鍵詞： 權(quán)利沖突 沖突化解 權(quán)利位階 權(quán)利平等 權(quán)利限制　出處：《法學(xué)》2016年11期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：權(quán)利位階及優(yōu)先權(quán)理論以權(quán)利的本質(zhì)之"利益說"為邏輯起點(diǎn),將尚未法定化的"利益"混同于"法定權(quán)利",基于"特定利益優(yōu)先性"及"利益位階論"得出權(quán)利位階及其優(yōu)先性之存在。這不僅漠視法定權(quán)利與道德權(quán)利之顯著差異,還極易夸大權(quán)利沖突的客觀性,弱化立法者清晰劃定權(quán)利界限時(shí)的主觀能動(dòng)性。事實(shí)上,法定權(quán)利不僅是平等的而且具有明確的界限,該界限雖是相對(duì)的,但權(quán)利總是具體的,相對(duì)清晰的權(quán)利界限總是存在的。因此,對(duì)權(quán)利的清晰界定及其法律限制,才是化解權(quán)利沖突的理想路徑。
[Abstract]:The order of rights and the theory of priority take the "interest theory" of the essence of rights as the logical starting point. The "interest", which has not yet been legalized, is confused with "legal right", and the existence of the right order and its priority is obtained based on "specific interest priority" and "interest rank theory", which not only ignores the significant difference between legal right and moral right. It is also easy to exaggerate the objectivity of the conflict of rights and weaken the subjective initiative when the legislator clearly delimits the limits of the rights. In fact, the legal rights are not only equal but also have clear boundaries, which are relative, but the rights are always specific. Therefore, the clear definition of the right and its legal limitation are the ideal ways to resolve the conflict of rights.
【作者單位】： 中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)研究中心;
【基金】：中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)第九屆博士后科研項(xiàng)目“競(jìng)業(yè)限制制度研究——以權(quán)利沖突及其化解為視角”基金資助
【分類號(hào)】：D90-052
，

本文編號(hào)：1497080