侵权责任构成之违法性要件研究

发布时间：2018-05-06 01:07

本文选题：侵权责任 + 构成要件　；参考：《郑州大学》2012年博士论文

【摘要】：侵权责任的构成要件,是确认和追究侵权责任的基本标准和必备要件,在侵权法理论中具有极为重要的理论和实践意义。但是,对于如此重要的理论、立法和司法实务问题,自罗马法开始,学界即产生了极大分歧,且至今尚未形成统一界说。尽管我国《侵权责任法》已经颁行实施,但对于其中规定的侵权责任构成要件,学界目前仍然认识不一。其争议的核心在于,侵权行为的违法性是否应当成为侵权责任的构成要件。所以,从理论上探讨侵权责任构成之违法性要件,具有极为重要的理论、立法和司法实践意义。本文首先通过导言部分,从理论、立法和实践中存在的有关争议,提出了文章所要研究的基本问题,然后通过大量的文献综述,进一步梳理了值得本文研究的核心问题,以及研究该问题的理论、立法和实践意义。在此基础上,文章分四部分对侵权责任构成之违法性要件进行了比较全面、深入、系统地研究。本文第一部分是对违法性要件否定说的理论和立法检视。其主要是从梳理问题的角度,对违法性要件否定说的理论和立法进行介绍和评析。文章首先对违法性要件否定说的基本理论进行了比较全面的介绍。因为,只有客观全面地理解违法性要件否定说的理论真谛,才能有针对性地对其进行分析、评析并做出理论回应,才能提出真正有价值的理论见解。为此,本文从两个方面比较全面、详实、客观地介绍了违法性要件否定说的基本理论观点：一是违法性要件没有独立存在必要性。其主要理由有三：(1)过错客观化使过错可以吸收违法,所以违法性要件不必要；(2)违法性要件经常具有或缺性,所以其没有独立存在的必要性；(3)违法性要件不利于对受害人的保护,所以不宜将其作为侵权责任的构成要件。二是违法性要件没有独立存在可行性。其主要理由也有三个方面：(1)违法性不具有独立的概念内涵,所以无法准确予以界定；(2)由于违法与过错交织,在实践中认定违法性比较困难；(3)我国法律上没有明确规定违法性要件,所以承认违法性要件没有法律依据。在理论介绍的基础上,文章对违法性要件否定说的基本观点进行了简要评析,为下文研究提供了必要的理论基础和参照对象。其次,文章对违法性要件否定说的相关立法,特别是对《法国民法典》的立法背景、立法形式、基本内容、司法效果、理论修正、立法变迁等进行了较为详细地介绍、分析和研究,并从中探求出侵权责任构成要件在立法上的理论争议和基本发展趋势。笔者发现,无论从世界范围讲,还是从某一国家侵权立法的历史看,基本上都经历了从不承认违法性要件到逐步承认违法性要件的发展过程。为了进一步说明该问题,文章针对目前国内外基于对违法性要件不同认识而产生的三种侵权立法模式,即法国否定违法性要件的模式；德国直接肯定违法性要件的模式；日本间接承认违法性要件的模式进行了比较法研究,其目的在于进一步提出本文必须研究和正视的相关理论和实践问题。本文第二部分是对违法性要件独立存在的理论基础进行研究。其主要是从基本法律范畴的角度,探讨违法性要件独立存在的理论基础问题。在这一部分中,文章从分析过错与违法的关系、自由与秩序的协调、主观与客观的区分,以及其中涉及的自然法与实在法的关系等方面,对违法性要件独立存在的基本理论进行了比较全面、深入地分析研究。文章认为,过错是对侵权行为人主观心理状态应受非难的一种道德性评价。认定过错的核心要素是意思能力、预见能力和行为心态。作为归究侵权责任的主观要件,其根本不涉及行为的客观方面。违法是对侵权行为本身可归责性的一种法律评价。认定违法的依据和标准是客观行为本身,以及法律对行为性质的客观评价,其根本不涉及行为人的主观方面。由于过错与违法分别具有完全不同的认定标准和依据,所以,作为侵权责任构成要件的主观要件和客观要件,具有完全不同的性质,分属完全不同的领域,根本不可能相互吸收和取代。如果仅强调主观过错的可归责性,不强调行为违法的可归责性,表面上看是对行为自由的保护,实质上却扩大了侵权责任的适用范围。因为,对违法性要件的排除,有可能使合法行为也受到法律的追究。因此,从自由与秩序相协调的角度,必须既强调主观过错,也强调行为违法；既不能单纯主观归责,也不能单纯客观归责。应当从主客观相统一的角度,构建侵权责任的构成要件体系。自然法仅强调对行为自由的保护,实在法仅强调对社会公序的维护,均有其一定的局限性。由于,过错要件与行为自由和主观归责相联系；违法要件与社会公序和客观归责相联系。所以,过错与违法具有同等重要的性质和地位,不可能也不应当相互吸收和取代。通过这部分研究,笔者旨在说明侵权责任构成之违法性要件具有独立存在的充分理论基础。本文第三部分是对违法性要件独立存在的必要性和可行性的分析论证。针对违法性要件否定说关于“违法性要件不具有独立存在必要性”的观点,文章认为,侵权责任构成的违法性要件,在理论和法律上具有依法确立行为准则、科学界定责任范围、充分实现责任理论自洽性等重要意义。只有依法确立了侵权责任之违法性要件,才能为人们的社会活动提供必要的行为准则,从而实现行为自由与秩序保障的协调统一。只有依法确立了侵权责任之违法性要件,才能为司法实践提供客观的裁判依据,从而科学界定侵权责任的适用范围。只有依法确立了侵权责任之违法性要件,才能为侵权责任的确认提供最基本的归责根据,才可能真正实现侵权责任理论的体系自洽。如果没有违法性要件的独立存在,人们的行为虽然自由,但却不可能形成和谐的社会秩序；如果没有违法性要件的独立存在,侵权责任的适用范围将永远无法科学统一；如果没有违法性要件的独立存在,侵权责任的归责体系必然存在自相矛盾和内部冲突。针对违法性要件否定说关于“违法性要件不具有独立存在可能性”的观点,文章认为,违法性要件的独立存在不仅具有理论价值,而且具有实务可能。由于违法与过错各有不同的认定标准,所以违法性的认定具有自己独立的依据和标准；由于立法上可以为违法性界定提供明确的法律依据,所以对违法性的认定完全具有实务上的可操作性；由于法律上不仅存在界定违法性的具体性规定,而且存在界定违法性的一般性规定和原则性规定,所以对违法性的认定应当具有一套完整的规范性体系。所以,在司法实务中完全可以确切认定侵权行为的违法性。如果说,文章第一部分是对本文所研究问题的梳理归纳,那么,文章第二和第三部分则是针对前文提出的问题,从肯定违法性要件独立存在的角度所进行的正面论证。其中关于违法性要件独立存在的理论基础,以及违法性要件独立存在的必要性和可行性分析,是本文研究的理论价值所在。本文第四部分是文章的实践意义所在。其主要是根据违法性要件独立存在的基本观点,对我国现行法律进行修改完善的相关建议。文章认为,我国法律中虽然以“侵害民事权益”的表述肯定了侵权责任构成的违法性要件,但是其中仍有许多值得进一步修改完善的地方。具体而言,在民法典制定时,应当适当调整其体系结构,按照民法总则—民事权利—权利救济的基本结构,在民法总则和人格权法、物权法、债权法、合同法、亲属法、继承法等民事权利编之后,以《权利救济法》取代并吸收《侵权责任法》,借以实现对民事权利保护的体系化和一体化；在民法典总则中应当设立民事权利的一般条款,为民事权利的保护和侵权行为违法性的认定奠定基础；应当根据权利的不同性质,明确规定对各种不同权利和法益予以保护和救济的不同程度和不同措施；应当依法确立私权神圣、诚实信用、公序良俗等基本原则,为违法性界定提供原则性依据。在现行《侵权责任法》或者未来的《权利救济法》中,应当进一步明确法律的调整对象和适用范围；应当对侵权行为做出明确界定,并根据侵权行为的不同类型,进行类型化规制；应当科学设定侵权责任的归责原则体系,确立以过错责任为中心的一元化多层次归责原则,即实行普通过错责任原则、推定过错责任原则和认定过错责任原则；应当明确规定侵权责任构成的违法性要件,严格区分界定行为性质的“侵害”与界定侵权后果的“损害”,在不同场合使用不同的概念表述；应当对侵权行为的违法性做出一般性和具体性规定；应当严格区分一般侵权与特殊侵权、作为侵权与不作为侵权的类型化规制；应当进一步理顺并整合有关侵权立法的基本法与特别法的关系；应当在某些具体侵权责任的构成中进一步明确违法性要件等。上述对民法典和《侵权责任法》相关内容的修改完善建议,是本文研究的实际价值所在。
[Abstract]:The constitutive requirements of the tort liability are the basic and essential requirements for confirming and investigating the tort liability. It has a very important theoretical and practical significance in the theory of tort law. However, for such an important theory, the legislative and judicial practice, since the beginning of the Rome law, has produced great differences in the academic circles and has not yet formed a unified boundary. Although the law of tort liability of our country has been enacted, the important elements of tort liability stipulated in it are still different from the academic circles. The core of the dispute lies in whether the illegality of the tort should be a constituent element of the tort liability. Therefore, it is extremely important to explore the illegality of the tort liability in theory. Important theory, legislation and judicial practical significance. This article first, through the introduction, from the theory, legislation and practice of the existing disputes, put forward the basic problems to be studied in the article, and then through a large number of literature review, further combing the core issues worthy of this study, as well as the study of the problem of the theory, legislation and reality. On this basis, the article is divided into four parts to conduct a comprehensive, in-depth and systematic study on the illegality elements of tort liability.
The first part of this article is the theory and the legislative examination of the negation of the elements of illegality. It mainly introduces and evaluates the theory and legislation of the negation of illegality elements from the point of view of combing the problem. The article first gives a comprehensive introduction to the basic theory of the negation of illegality. If the legal essentials negate the true meaning of the theory, we can analyze it, evaluate and make a theoretical response, and make a theoretical view of real value. For this reason, the basic theoretical views of the negation of illegality are introduced in two aspects: the first is that the elements of illegality have no independent existence. In necessity, the main reasons are three: (1) the objectification of the fault can make the fault absorb the law, so the illegality is not necessary; (2) the illegality is often or lack of nature, so it is not necessary to exist independently; (3) the illegality is not conducive to the protection of the victim, so it should not be used as the constituent element of the tort liability. Two is the illegality element has no independent existence feasibility. Its main reason also has three aspects: (1) the illegality does not have the independent concept connotation, so it can not be accurately defined; (2) it is difficult to identify the illegality in practice because of the interlacing between the law and the fault; (3) the law does not clearly specify the elements of illegality, so admit that There is no legal basis for illegality. On the basis of the introduction of the theory, the article briefly reviews the basic views of the negation of illegality elements, and provides the necessary theoretical basis and reference objects for the following research. Secondly, the relevant legislation of the negation of the elements of illegality, especially the legislative background of the law of the law of the law, has been established. The legal form, the basic content, the judicial effect, the theory amendment, the legislative change and so on are introduced, analyzed and studied in detail, and the theoretical dispute and basic development trend of the constitutive elements of the tort liability in legislation are found out. The author finds that, in terms of the world, or the history of a country's tort legislation, it is basically all In order to further explain the problem, the article aims at three modes of tort legislation based on different understanding of the elements of illegality at home and abroad, namely, the model of France denying the elements of illegality, and the model of Germany's direct affirmation of the elements of illegality. In Japan, the model of indirect recognition of the elements of illegality is studied by comparative law. The purpose of this study is to further put forward the relevant theoretical and practical problems that this article must study and face.
The second part of this article is to study the theoretical basis of the independent existence of the elements of illegality. It mainly discusses the theoretical basis of the independent existence of the elements of illegality from the perspective of the basic legal category. In this part, the article from the analysis of the relationship between the fault and the law, the coordination of freedom and rank, the distinction between subjective and objective, and among them The basic theory of the independent existence of the elements of illegality is comparatively comprehensive and deeply analyzed. The article holds that the fault is a moral evaluation of the subjective psychological state of the infringer. The core elements of the fault are the ability of meaning, the ability to foresee and the behavior. As the subjective element of the liability for tort, it does not involve the objective aspect of the behavior at all. The law is a legal evaluation of the liability of the tort itself. The basis and standard of the violation of the law are the objective behavior itself, and the objective evaluation of the nature of the act, which does not involve the subjective aspects of the actor. There are completely different criteria and basis for the identification of errors and illegality. Therefore, as the subjective and objective elements of the constitutive requirements of the tort liability, they are completely different in nature and belong to a completely different field. It is impossible to absorb and replace each other. If only the liability of subjective fault is emphasized, the liability for illegal behavior is not emphasized. On the surface, it is the protection of freedom of conduct, which essentially expands the scope of the application of the tort liability, because the exclusion of the elements of illegality may make the legal act also be investigated by the law. Therefore, from the angle of freedom and order, it is necessary to emphasize both the subjective fault and the act illegality. Responsibility should not be imputable alone. We should build the system of constitutive elements of tort liability from the angle of unity of subjective and objective view. The law of nature only emphasizes the protection of freedom of conduct. The real law only emphasizes the maintenance of social public order. It has its certain limitations. The social order is connected with the objective imputation. Therefore, the fault and the law have the same important nature and status, and it is impossible to absorb and replace each other. Through this part, the author aims to explain that the illegality of the tort liability has a full theoretical basis for its independent existence.
The third part of this article is the analysis and demonstration of the necessity and feasibility of the independent existence of illegality. In view of the view that the elements of illegality do not have the necessity of independent existence, the article holds that the illegality of the tort liability is established in the theory and law, and the scientific community is established in theory and law. It is important to set the scope of responsibility and fully realize the self consistency of the theory of responsibility. Only by establishing the illegality of the tort liability in accordance with the law can we provide the necessary rules of conduct for the social activities of the people, thus realize the coordination and unity of the freedom of behavior and the guarantee of order. Only by establishing the illegality of the tort liability according to law, can it be the judiciary The practice provides an objective basis for the judgment, thus scientifically defining the scope of application of the tort liability. Only by establishing the illegality of the tort liability in accordance with the law can it provide the most basic basis for the confirmation of the tort liability, and the system of the theory of tort liability can be truly realized. If there is no independent existence of the elements of illegality, people Although the behavior is free, it is impossible to form a harmonious social order; if there is no independent existence of illegal elements, the scope of application of tort liability will never be unscientifically unified; if there is no independent existence of illegality, the liability system of tort liability will inevitably have contradictions and internal conflicts. In the view of the view that "the elements of illegality do not have the possibility of independent existence", the article holds that the independent existence of the elements of illegality not only has theoretical value, but also has the possibility of practice. Because there are different standards of identification between the law and the offense, the identification of illegality has its own independent basis and standard. In order to provide a clear legal basis for the definition of illegality, the cognizance of illegality is completely operable, because there is not only the specific provisions to define illegality, but also the general provisions and principles that define illegality, so the identification of illegality should have a complete set of rules. Therefore, in judicial practice, the illegality of infringing acts can be clearly identified.
If the first part of the article is a summary of the problems studied in this article, the second and the third part of the article is a positive demonstration of the problems raised in the previous article from the perspective of the independent existence of the elements of the affirmative illegality. The theoretical basis for the independent existence of the elements of illegality and the independent existence of the illegality elements The analysis of the necessity and feasibility is the theoretical value of this study.
The fourth part of this article is the practical significance of the article. It is mainly based on the basic standpoint of the independent existence of illegality, and the relevant suggestions on the amendment and improvement of the current laws in China. The article holds that although the law of our country has affirmed the illegality of the tort liability, although it is "infringed on the civil rights and interests", there are still some of them. There are many places worthy of further revision and perfection. In particular, the system structure should be properly adjusted at the time of civil code, according to the basic structure of the general principles of civil law, civil rights and rights relief, the civil rights of civil law, the law of personality, the law of property, the law of the creditor, the law of the contract, the law of the relatives, the law of inheritance and so on. Law > replace and absorb the tort liability law to realize the systematization and integration of the protection of civil rights; in general provisions of civil code, the general provisions of civil rights should be set up to lay the foundation for the protection of civil rights and the identification of the illegality of the tort, and the different rights should be clearly defined in accordance with the different nature of the rights. And the different measures and different measures for the protection and relief of the legal interests; the basic principles such as the sanctity of private rights, honesty and credit, public order and good customs should be established according to law, and the principle basis is provided for the definition of illegality. In the current law of tort liability or the future law of right relief, the object and scope of the law should be clearly defined. There should be a clear definition of the tort and the type of regulation according to the different types of tort; the system of liability fixation should be set up scientifically, and the principle of unified and multilevel liability centered on fault liability should be established, that is, the original principle of common fault liability, the principle of fault liability and the original responsibility for fault identification, should be established. However, it should clearly define the illegal elements of the tort liability, strictly distinguish the "infringement" of the nature of the act and the "damage" that defines the consequences of the tort, and use different conceptual expressions on different occasions; it should make a general and specific regulation on the illegality of the tort, and should strictly distinguish between the general tort and the special invasion. Right, as the typified regulation of tort and inaction; the relationship between the basic law and the special law of the tort legislation should be further straightened up and integrated, and the illegality should be further clarified in the constitution of certain specific liability for tort. The above suggestions for amendments to the relevant contents of the civil code and the tort liability law are the article The practical value of the study.

【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923

【引证文献】