本文選題：公法責(zé)任 + 私法責(zé)任�。� 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)法理學(xué)界關(guān)于法律責(zé)任構(gòu)成理論的通說(shuō)認(rèn)為,法律責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件一般包括責(zé)任主體、違法行為或違約行為、損害后果、因果關(guān)系、主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)等五個(gè)方面。但通說(shuō)沒(méi)有能夠在公法與私法這種最基本的法律類型上做出區(qū)分,導(dǎo)致了它在有的法律關(guān)系上說(shuō)得通,有的法律關(guān)系上說(shuō)不通,不夠精準(zhǔn)。 法律責(zé)任構(gòu)成是指認(rèn)定法律責(zé)任時(shí)所應(yīng)該予以考慮的具體因素,包括必要因素和非必要因素兩大類。循著公法與私法的二元?jiǎng)澐诌@樣一種思路,我們或許可以嘗試著對(duì)法理學(xué)通說(shuō)進(jìn)行改造,也即將法理學(xué)通說(shuō)分解為公法責(zé)任構(gòu)成和私法責(zé)任構(gòu)成,以提升法律責(zé)任構(gòu)成理論的合理性、精準(zhǔn)性和科學(xué)性。 公法責(zé)任是以道義為基礎(chǔ)和特征的,私法責(zé)任是以功利為基礎(chǔ)和特征的。以刑法、行政法為主的公法具有濃厚的道義性,因而公法上的責(zé)任以懲罰為核心目的；以民法為主的私法具有強(qiáng)烈的功利性,因而私法上的責(zé)任以補(bǔ)償為核心目的。 公法責(zé)任構(gòu)成的必要因素包括主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)、主體、違法行為三個(gè)方面,非必要因素包括危害結(jié)果和因果關(guān)系兩個(gè)方面；私法責(zé)任構(gòu)成的必要因素包括損害結(jié)果、行為和因果關(guān)系三個(gè)方面,非必要因素包括主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)、行為的違法性兩個(gè)方面。區(qū)分公法與私法的責(zé)任構(gòu)成,不僅具有理論方面的價(jià)值,也有實(shí)踐方面的指導(dǎo)意義。 歸責(zé)原則并不是責(zé)任構(gòu)成的基礎(chǔ)和前提,不是歸責(zé)原則決定了責(zé)任構(gòu)成,而是恰恰相反,不同的責(zé)任構(gòu)成決定了不同的歸責(zé)原則。由公法責(zé)任構(gòu)成所提煉出來(lái)的歸責(zé)原則是過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則；由私法責(zé)任構(gòu)成所抽象出來(lái)的歸責(zé)原則包括三種,分別是無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則、公平責(zé)任原則和過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則。在責(zé)任構(gòu)成與責(zé)任方式的關(guān)系上,應(yīng)當(dāng)承認(rèn)責(zé)任構(gòu)成對(duì)不同責(zé)任方式的選擇具有宏觀上的、決定性的意義。
[Abstract]:The general theory of legal liability theory in our country holds that the constitutive elements of legal liability generally include five aspects: the subject of liability, the illegal act or breach of contract, the damage consequence, the causality, the subjective fault and so on. However, the general theory fails to distinguish between public law and private law as the most basic type of law, which leads it to make sense in some legal relations and to make no sense in some legal relations, which is not precise enough. The constitution of legal liability refers to the specific factors that should be considered when determining legal liability, including two categories of essential factors and non-essential factors. Following the dual division of public law and private law, we may try to reform the general theory of jurisprudence and divide it into public law liability and private law liability. In order to enhance the rationality, accuracy and scientific nature of the theory of legal liability constitution. The responsibility of public law is based on morality and characteristic, and the responsibility of private law is based on utilitarianism. Criminal law and administrative law as the main public law has a strong moral character, so the responsibility of public law is to punish as the core purpose; the civil law based on private law has a strong utilitarian, so the responsibility of private law is to compensate as the core purpose. The essential factors of liability in public law include three aspects: subjective fault, subject and illegal act, non-essential factors include harm result and causality, and the necessary factor of liability constitution of private law includes damage result. Non-essential factors include subjective fault and illegality. It is not only of theoretical value, but also of practical significance to distinguish the constitution of responsibility between public law and private law. The principle of imputation is not the basis and premise of the formation of responsibility. It is not the principle of imputation that determines the constitution of responsibility, but on the contrary, different constitution of responsibility determines different imputation principle. The imputation principle extracted from the constitution of public law liability is the principle of fault liability, and the principle of imputation which is abstracted from the constitution of liability in private law includes three kinds, namely, the principle of no-fault liability, the principle of fair liability and the principle of fault liability. In the relation between responsibility constitution and responsibility mode, it should be acknowledged that responsibility constitution has macroscopical and decisive significance to the choice of different responsibility ways.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D90

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葛建義;論法律責(zé)任構(gòu)成的確定性[J];常州工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年05期

2 徐曉,晁育虎;私法責(zé)任正當(dāng)性芻論——在違約責(zé)任和侵權(quán)責(zé)任中求證[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2004年02期

3 徐祖林;;侵權(quán)法歸責(zé)原則的論爭(zhēng)及其解析[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2007年06期

4 楊立新;;中國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法應(yīng)當(dāng)如何規(guī)定侵權(quán)責(zé)任形態(tài)[J];法律適用;2008年08期

5 翁文剛;法律責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件與承擔(dān)條件應(yīng)予區(qū)分[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2001年02期

6 格哈特·瓦格納;高圣平;熊丙萬(wàn);;當(dāng)代侵權(quán)法比較研究[J];法學(xué)家;2010年02期

7 劉艷紅;晚近我國(guó)刑法犯罪構(gòu)成理論研究中的五大誤區(qū)[J];法學(xué);2001年10期

8 張秉民;陳明祥;;論我國(guó)公法責(zé)任制度的缺陷與完善[J];法學(xué);2006年02期

9 高銘暄;;關(guān)于中國(guó)刑法學(xué)犯罪構(gòu)成理論的思考[J];法學(xué);2010年02期

10 沈幼倫;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則三元化之思考——對(duì)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的解讀[J];法學(xué);2010年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：2034351