本文選題：侵權(quán)法 + 一般條款��； 參考：《武漢大學(xué)》2012年博士論文

【摘要】：侵權(quán)法一般條款在侵權(quán)法立法和司法中均具有重要地位。本文兼顧立法論與解釋論，綜合價(jià)值考量與技術(shù)分析，在充分考慮我國(guó)國(guó)情和法律環(huán)境的基礎(chǔ)上，提出我國(guó)侵權(quán)法一般條款修改建議稿，并對(duì)現(xiàn)行侵權(quán)法一般條款進(jìn)行盡可能符合我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐需要的解讀。全文除引言和結(jié)論外，共分四章。 引言對(duì)侵權(quán)法一般條款的概念、特征和功能進(jìn)行必要論述。侵權(quán)法一般條款是具有高度概括性和普遍適用性的法律條款。其能夠較好地化解法典化和具體規(guī)則與復(fù)雜多變的現(xiàn)實(shí)社會(huì)生活之間的緊張關(guān)系。一般條款的規(guī)范屬性介于民法基本原則和侵權(quán)法具體規(guī)則之間，可視為侵權(quán)法的基本原則。一般條款在立法上構(gòu)成具體條款規(guī)定的基礎(chǔ)，在司法上具有兜底和補(bǔ)充適用功能，為法官進(jìn)行實(shí)質(zhì)的利益衡量提供了合法機(jī)會(huì)。 第一章論述侵權(quán)法的規(guī)范模式。通過(guò)分析侵權(quán)法三種范式規(guī)范模式（具體列舉模式、抽象概括模式和折中主義模式）的形成和確立原因，總結(jié)出進(jìn)行侵權(quán)法規(guī)范模式選擇的主要制約因素，即權(quán)益保障與行為自由的權(quán)衡，正義價(jià)值與安全價(jià)值的取舍，立法權(quán)與司法權(quán)的配置與法治傳統(tǒng)、司法現(xiàn)狀。這些前提性制約因素決定了我國(guó)不可能借鑒英美侵權(quán)法“具體列舉+判例創(chuàng)新”模式，而只能采大陸法的一般條款規(guī)范模式。大陸法系民事司法中的類推適用制度適用難度大，而且可靠性不強(qiáng)，只能適用于不得已，不能用類推適用制度取代侵權(quán)法一般條款。 第二章論述侵權(quán)法一般條款的規(guī)定方式。立法過(guò)度一般化對(duì)司法實(shí)踐沒(méi)有積極意義，一般條款應(yīng)限于概括“對(duì)自己的過(guò)錯(cuò)行為的侵權(quán)責(zé)任”，而不是概括一切侵權(quán)責(zé)任。在過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)一般條款規(guī)定方式方面，德國(guó)大類型化條款比法國(guó)的抽象概括條款在價(jià)值判斷、政策選擇和技術(shù)操作方面均有其優(yōu)勢(shì)，且更符合我國(guó)國(guó)情，比較適合我國(guó)借鑒。我國(guó)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第6條第1款在文字表述方面接近法國(guó)的抽象概括模式，對(duì)權(quán)利和利益的同等保護(hù)導(dǎo)致判決的確定性和法的安全價(jià)值的缺失。鑒于通過(guò)解釋第6條第1款實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)權(quán)利與利益的區(qū)別保護(hù)存在解釋論障礙，一般條款在侵權(quán)法立法和司法實(shí)踐中重要功能的發(fā)揮有賴于首先從立法上恰當(dāng)?shù)匾?guī)定一般條款，立法階段解決問(wèn)題比司法階段解決問(wèn)題更有效率，因此對(duì)我國(guó)侵權(quán)法一般條款進(jìn)行修改確有必要，從立法上解決問(wèn)題是我國(guó)處理該問(wèn)題的“上策”。立法官員認(rèn)為的“權(quán)利和利益難以區(qū)分”不能構(gòu)成我國(guó)借鑒德國(guó)模式的障礙，我國(guó)可在立法上采納權(quán)利和利益區(qū)別保護(hù)的德國(guó)模式，然后由最高法院根據(jù)實(shí)踐需要及時(shí)以司法解釋對(duì)權(quán)利和利益進(jìn)行統(tǒng)一區(qū)分。 立法的具體列舉是對(duì)一般條款的悖離，故應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮其必要性。全面的具體列舉既不可能也沒(méi)必要，而示例性列舉應(yīng)當(dāng)有助于法官準(zhǔn)確裁判案件�！肚謾�(quán)責(zé)任法》對(duì)責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式的列舉不僅制造了侵權(quán)責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式與絕對(duì)權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)之間的矛盾、不同的責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式與歸責(zé)原則和構(gòu)成要件之間的矛盾，而且隱含著按不同的責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式對(duì)一般條款進(jìn)行具體列舉的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。一般條款規(guī)范模式要求不僅在責(zé)任構(gòu)成部分規(guī)定統(tǒng)一的構(gòu)成要件，還應(yīng)對(duì)責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式做體系化和系統(tǒng)化規(guī)定，否則侵權(quán)法仍有滑向具體列舉模式的危險(xiǎn)。侵權(quán)法學(xué)應(yīng)當(dāng)以“責(zé)任構(gòu)成理論”統(tǒng)領(lǐng)“要件理論”和“抗辯理論”，將抗辯問(wèn)題作為要件問(wèn)題的“反問(wèn)題”，構(gòu)成要件是責(zé)任構(gòu)成的正面支持理由，抗辯事由是責(zé)任構(gòu)成的反面否認(rèn)理由，兩者同步進(jìn)行，區(qū)別僅在于舉證責(zé)任不同；立法應(yīng)當(dāng)將“責(zé)任構(gòu)成”與“責(zé)任承擔(dān)”分立為兩章，并將“構(gòu)成要件”與“抗辯事由”合并為一章。 第三章論述侵權(quán)法一般條款的學(xué)理具體化�！肚謾�(quán)責(zé)任法》第2條第1款不宜解讀為“大一般條款”；相比之下，第6條第1款比較適合解讀為一般條款；第6條第2款和第7條、第24條、第69條均不宜解讀為一般條款。 由于立法的具體列舉和補(bǔ)充性、解釋性規(guī)定在我國(guó)一般侵權(quán)構(gòu)成要件具體化方面的作用甚微，抽象概括一般條款模式下裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的確定性成為突出問(wèn)題。建議借鑒德國(guó)過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)法的大類型化模式，從學(xué)理上對(duì)一般侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件進(jìn)行類型化，這是我國(guó)處理該問(wèn)題的“中策”。德國(guó)侵權(quán)法對(duì)過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)進(jìn)行類型化的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)即違法性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。將違法性作為我國(guó)過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的獨(dú)立要件，既有利于精確平衡原告權(quán)益保護(hù)與被告行為自由之間的利益沖突，合理限制法官自由裁量權(quán)，還有助于緩解權(quán)利爆炸和權(quán)利沖突的尷尬。為此，可將“侵害權(quán)益”作為違法性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并將過(guò)失侵權(quán)責(zé)任的保護(hù)范圍原則上限于“侵害絕對(duì)權(quán)益”，相對(duì)權(quán)和利益僅在構(gòu)成“違反保護(hù)性法律”或“故意違反公序良俗”的條件下才受一般條款保護(hù)，從而在解釋論上形成以“侵害權(quán)益”（即違法性）為責(zé)任構(gòu)成的核心要件，以“過(guò)失侵害絕對(duì)權(quán)”、“過(guò)失違反保護(hù)他人的法律”、“故意違反善良風(fēng)俗”為三大類型的過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)法體系。“侵害絕對(duì)權(quán)”即推定違法，而“違反保護(hù)他人的法律”和“故意違反善良風(fēng)俗”的違法性需要進(jìn)行正面認(rèn)定。通過(guò)三個(gè)兼顧操作性和適當(dāng)彈性的類型化條款,可實(shí)現(xiàn)侵權(quán)法保護(hù)范圍的相對(duì)開(kāi)放性，兼顧現(xiàn)實(shí)需求和未來(lái)發(fā)展。 第四章論述侵權(quán)法一般條款對(duì)民法體系的影響，從體系化視角對(duì)我國(guó)侵權(quán)法一般條款規(guī)范模式進(jìn)行反思，并據(jù)此對(duì)一般條款的解釋提出建議。 我國(guó)《合同法》是德國(guó)模式的“大合同法”，而《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》又是法國(guó)模式的“大侵權(quán)法”（對(duì)一般條款進(jìn)行文義解釋），兩法對(duì)合同利益的保護(hù)存在重疊。對(duì)于責(zé)任競(jìng)合，民法學(xué)界存在法條競(jìng)合說(shuō)、請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合說(shuō)和請(qǐng)求權(quán)規(guī)范競(jìng)合說(shuō)，三種學(xué)說(shuō)均有其局限性，都不足以解決我國(guó)的責(zé)任競(jìng)合難題，最理想的解決方案是盡量減少人為的責(zé)任競(jìng)合。我國(guó)只能通過(guò)限制過(guò)失侵權(quán)責(zé)任的保護(hù)范圍，避免對(duì)合同法所保護(hù)的利益提供侵權(quán)法保護(hù)，即侵權(quán)法原則上僅保護(hù)絕對(duì)權(quán)。 由于侵權(quán)法與人格權(quán)法之間的內(nèi)在關(guān)聯(lián)，，侵權(quán)法立法模式影響到了人格權(quán)法的立法模式。我國(guó)侵權(quán)法已規(guī)定了兜底性一般條款，未來(lái)人格權(quán)法應(yīng)采具體列舉模式。德國(guó)通過(guò)判例確立的一般人格權(quán)制度的功能僅在于彌補(bǔ)具體列舉人格權(quán)種類的不足，在我國(guó)侵權(quán)法一般條款已為人格利益的保護(hù)預(yù)留了足夠空間的前提下，人格權(quán)立法中不必再規(guī)定一般人格權(quán)制度。解釋論上可以將人格權(quán)法對(duì)人格權(quán)的類型化列舉解讀為對(duì)侵權(quán)法一般條款具體化的方式，這種具體列舉的人格權(quán)在侵權(quán)法中將給予最有力度和最具確定性的保護(hù)，減少了侵權(quán)法一般條款發(fā)揮作用的頻率，從而有助于減輕司法的難度、增強(qiáng)侵權(quán)法的確定性。人格權(quán)法和侵權(quán)責(zé)任法都保護(hù)具體人格權(quán)，而純粹人格利益的保護(hù)則完全委諸于侵權(quán)法一般條款。
[Abstract]:The general provisions of the law of tort have an important position in both the legislation and the judicature of the tort law. This paper gives consideration to the theory of legislation and interpretation, the comprehensive value examination and technical analysis. On the basis of fully considering the national conditions and the legal environment of our country, this paper puts forward the revised draft of the general provisions of the law of tort in our country, and makes the general provisions of the current tort law as possible as possible. The interpretation of China's judicial practice needs four chapters besides the introduction and conclusion.
The introduction is necessary to discuss the concept, characteristics and functions of the general provisions of the tort law. The general provisions of the tort law are the legal provisions with high generality and universal applicability. It can better improve the tension between the canonization of the law and the concrete rules and the complex and changeable social life. The normative attribute of the general clause is in the civil law. The basic principles between the basic principles and the specific rules of the tort law can be regarded as the basic principles of the law of tort. The general provisions constitute the basis for the provisions of the specific provisions in the legislature, and have the sole function of the judiciary and the supplementary application, which provides the legal opportunity for the judge to carry out the substantive interests.
The first chapter discusses the standard mode of the tort law. Through the analysis of the formation and establishment of the three normal modes of the tort law (specific model, abstract pattern and eclecticism), the main constraints are summed up, that is, the trade-off between the rights and interests and the freedom of behavior, the value of justice and the safety price. The choice of value, the allocation of legislative power and judicial power, the tradition of the rule of law and the status quo of judicature. These precondition factors determine that China can not draw on the model of "specific enumerating + case innovation" in the Anglo American tort law, but only the general provisions of the continental law. And the reliability is not strong. It can only be applied to the last resort. The general provisions of tort law can not be replaced by analogy.
The second chapter discusses the general provisions of the tort law. The overgeneralization of the legislation has no positive significance to the judicial practice. The general terms should be limited to the summary of "the tort liability for the fault of its own", but not the general tort liability. In the general provisions of the fault tort, the German large type clause is more than the French. It has its advantages in value judgment, policy choice and technical operation, which is more in line with our national conditions and is more suitable for our country. The sixth article of tort liability law of China is close to the abstract generalization mode of French in the word expression, and the same protection of rights and interests leads to the determinacy of the judgment and the safety price of law. In view of the existence of interpretative barriers to the protection of rights and interests between the sixth sections and first paragraphs, the important function of the general clause in the legislation and judicial practice of the tort law depends on the proper provision of the general provisions from the legislative stage, and the resolution of the questions in the legislative stage is more efficient than that in the judicial stage. It is necessary to modify the general provisions of the law of tort in our country. It is the "best policy" to deal with the problem in our country. It is difficult to distinguish between the rights and interests of the legislative officials. It can not constitute the obstacle to the German model in our country. The Supreme Court should make a unified distinction between rights and interests based on judicial practice.
The specific enumeration of legislation is the paradox of the general terms, so it should be considered as the necessity. A comprehensive specific enumeration is neither possible nor necessary, and the exemplary enumeration should help the judge to judge the case accurately. Contradictions, different ways of taking responsibility and the contradiction between the principle of imputation and the constituent elements, and implying the risk of enumerating the general terms in a different way of responsibility. The standard model of general terms requires not only a unified constituent part of the responsibility component, but also the system and Department of the way of responsibility bearing. Otherwise, the tort law still has the danger of sliding into the specific enumerated mode. The tort law should take "the theory of elements" and "the theory of defense" by "the theory of responsibility constitution", and take the question of defense as the "counter question" of the important element problem, and the constituent elements are the positive support reasons of the constitution of responsibility, and the defense is the opposite of the constitution of the responsibility. The difference between the two is only the difference in the burden of proof; the legislation should divide the "responsibility constitution" and the "responsibility" into two chapters, and combine the "constitutive elements" with the "defences" as a chapter.
The third chapter discusses the rationalization of the general provisions of the tort law. < tort liability law > second articles and first paragraphs should not be interpreted as "large general terms"; in contrast, sixth and first paragraphs are more suitable for interpretation as general terms; sixth second and seventh, twenty-fourth, sixty-ninth should not be interpreted as general terms.
Because of the specific enumeration and complementarity of legislation, the role of the interpretative provisions in the specific elements of the constitution of the general tort is very small, and the determinacy of the referee standard in the general general clause is a prominent problem. Typization is the "middle policy" of dealing with the problem in China. The German tort law is typed in the standard of illegality, which is the independent element of the liability for fault tort in our country, which is beneficial to the precise balance of the conflict of interests between the protection of the plaintiff's rights and the freedom of the defendant's behavior and the reasonable restriction of the discretion of the judge. Right can also help to alleviate the embarrassment of the rights explosion and the conflict of rights. Therefore, the "infringement of rights and interests" can be regarded as the criterion of illegality, and the principle of the protection of the liability for negligence infringement is limited to "infringing the absolute rights and interests", and the relative rights and interests constitute the conditions of "violating the protection law" or "intentionally violating the public order and good customs". Under the protection of general provisions, the core elements of the "infringement of rights and interests" (illegality) are formed in the interpretation theory, and the three types of wrong tort law system are "negligent infringement of absolute right", "negligent violation of the law of protection of others" and "intentional violation of good customs". "Infringement of absolute power" is presumed to be illegal, The illegality of "violating the law of protecting others" and "intentional violation of good customs" needs to be positively identified. Through three types of clauses that give consideration to both operational and appropriate flexibility, the relative openness of the scope of the protection of the tort law can be realized, and the actual needs and future development can be taken into account.
The fourth chapter discusses the influence of the general provisions of the tort law on the civil law system, and rethinks the general terms of the tort law in our country from the perspective of the system, and puts forward some suggestions on the interpretation of the general terms.
The contract law of China is the "large contract law" of the German model, while the tort liability law is also the "large tort law" of the French model (the interpretation of the general terms). The protection of the interests of the contract is overlapped by the two laws. There are three kinds of competing claims in the civil law circle, the concurrence of the right of claim and the standard of the right of request. The theory has its limitations. Neither is enough to solve the problem of liability competing in our country. The most ideal solution is to minimize human liability concurrence. China can only avoid the protection of the interests protected by the contract law by restricting the protection of the liability for negligence tort, that is, the right of absolute protection is only protected in principle of tort law.
Due to the inherent connection between the tort law and the personality right law, the legislative mode of the tort law affects the legislative mode of the personality right law. The tort law of our country has stipulated the general provisions of the bottom of the pocket, and the future personality right law should adopt specific enumerating patterns. The function of the general personality right established by German cases is only to make up for the specific enumerated personality rights. Under the premise that the general clause of tort law in our country has reserved enough space for the protection of personality interests, there is no need to specify the system of general personality right in the legislation of personality right. The right of personality will give the most powerful and definitive protection in the tort law, which reduces the frequency of the general provisions of the tort law, thus helps to reduce the difficulty of the judiciary and strengthens the certainty of the tort law. Both the personality right and the Tort Liability Act protect the specific personality rights, while the protection of the pure personality interests is completed by the whole committee in tort. General provisions of law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 海爾穆特·庫(kù)齊奧;朱巖;張玉東;;歐盟純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失賠償研究[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2009年01期

2 章正璋;;中德一般侵權(quán)行為立法之比較[J];比較法研究;2005年06期

3 薛軍;;揭開(kāi)“一般人格權(quán)”的面紗——兼論比較法研究中的“體系意識(shí)”[J];比較法研究;2008年05期

4 沈建峰;;具體人格權(quán)立法模式及其選擇——以德國(guó)、瑞士、奧地利、列支登士敦為考察重點(diǎn)[J];比較法研究;2011年05期

5 鐘瑞棟;;論《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的形式理性和實(shí)質(zhì)理性[J];比較法研究;2011年06期

6 王利明;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任法制定中的若干問(wèn)題[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2008年05期

7 尹田;論一般人格權(quán)[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

8 徐曉峰;責(zé)任競(jìng)合與訴訟標(biāo)的理論[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

9 石佳友;;當(dāng)代侵權(quán)法的挑戰(zhàn)及其應(yīng)對(duì)——“侵權(quán)法改革國(guó)際論壇”綜述[J];法律適用;2008年08期

10 陳現(xiàn)杰;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》一般條款中的違法性判斷要件[J];法律適用;2010年07期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 曾江波;侵權(quán)行為法規(guī)范模式比較研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2004年

本文編號(hào)：2036588