侵权法一般条款研究

发布时间：2018-06-18 19:19

本文选题：侵权法 + 一般条款　；参考：《武汉大学》2012年博士论文

【摘要】：侵权法一般条款在侵权法立法和司法中均具有重要地位。本文兼顾立法论与解释论，综合价值考量与技术分析，在充分考虑我国国情和法律环境的基础上，提出我国侵权法一般条款修改建议稿，并对现行侵权法一般条款进行尽可能符合我国司法实践需要的解读。全文除引言和结论外，共分四章。引言对侵权法一般条款的概念、特征和功能进行必要论述。侵权法一般条款是具有高度概括性和普遍适用性的法律条款。其能够较好地化解法典化和具体规则与复杂多变的现实社会生活之间的紧张关系。一般条款的规范属性介于民法基本原则和侵权法具体规则之间，可视为侵权法的基本原则。一般条款在立法上构成具体条款规定的基础，在司法上具有兜底和补充适用功能，为法官进行实质的利益衡量提供了合法机会。第一章论述侵权法的规范模式。通过分析侵权法三种范式规范模式（具体列举模式、抽象概括模式和折中主义模式）的形成和确立原因，总结出进行侵权法规范模式选择的主要制约因素，即权益保障与行为自由的权衡，正义价值与安全价值的取舍，立法权与司法权的配置与法治传统、司法现状。这些前提性制约因素决定了我国不可能借鉴英美侵权法“具体列举+判例创新”模式，而只能采大陆法的一般条款规范模式。大陆法系民事司法中的类推适用制度适用难度大，而且可靠性不强，只能适用于不得已，不能用类推适用制度取代侵权法一般条款。第二章论述侵权法一般条款的规定方式。立法过度一般化对司法实践没有积极意义，一般条款应限于概括“对自己的过错行为的侵权责任”，而不是概括一切侵权责任。在过错侵权一般条款规定方式方面，德国大类型化条款比法国的抽象概括条款在价值判断、政策选择和技术操作方面均有其优势，且更符合我国国情，比较适合我国借鉴。我国《侵权责任法》第6条第1款在文字表述方面接近法国的抽象概括模式，对权利和利益的同等保护导致判决的确定性和法的安全价值的缺失。鉴于通过解释第6条第1款实现对权利与利益的区别保护存在解释论障碍，一般条款在侵权法立法和司法实践中重要功能的发挥有赖于首先从立法上恰当地规定一般条款，立法阶段解决问题比司法阶段解决问题更有效率，因此对我国侵权法一般条款进行修改确有必要，从立法上解决问题是我国处理该问题的“上策”。立法官员认为的“权利和利益难以区分”不能构成我国借鉴德国模式的障碍，我国可在立法上采纳权利和利益区别保护的德国模式，然后由最高法院根据实践需要及时以司法解释对权利和利益进行统一区分。立法的具体列举是对一般条款的悖离，故应当考虑其必要性。全面的具体列举既不可能也没必要，而示例性列举应当有助于法官准确裁判案件。《侵权责任法》对责任承担方式的列举不仅制造了侵权责任承担方式与绝对权请求权之间的矛盾、不同的责任承担方式与归责原则和构成要件之间的矛盾，而且隐含着按不同的责任承担方式对一般条款进行具体列举的风险。一般条款规范模式要求不仅在责任构成部分规定统一的构成要件，还应对责任承担方式做体系化和系统化规定，否则侵权法仍有滑向具体列举模式的危险。侵权法学应当以“责任构成理论”统领“要件理论”和“抗辩理论”，将抗辩问题作为要件问题的“反问题”，构成要件是责任构成的正面支持理由，抗辩事由是责任构成的反面否认理由，两者同步进行，区别仅在于举证责任不同；立法应当将“责任构成”与“责任承担”分立为两章，并将“构成要件”与“抗辩事由”合并为一章。第三章论述侵权法一般条款的学理具体化。《侵权责任法》第2条第1款不宜解读为“大一般条款”；相比之下，第6条第1款比较适合解读为一般条款；第6条第2款和第7条、第24条、第69条均不宜解读为一般条款。由于立法的具体列举和补充性、解释性规定在我国一般侵权构成要件具体化方面的作用甚微，抽象概括一般条款模式下裁判标准的确定性成为突出问题。建议借鉴德国过错侵权法的大类型化模式，从学理上对一般侵权的构成要件进行类型化，这是我国处理该问题的“中策”。德国侵权法对过错侵权进行类型化的标准即违法性标准。将违法性作为我国过错侵权责任的独立要件，既有利于精确平衡原告权益保护与被告行为自由之间的利益冲突，合理限制法官自由裁量权，还有助于缓解权利爆炸和权利冲突的尴尬。为此，可将“侵害权益”作为违法性的判断标准，并将过失侵权责任的保护范围原则上限于“侵害绝对权益”，相对权和利益仅在构成“违反保护性法律”或“故意违反公序良俗”的条件下才受一般条款保护，从而在解释论上形成以“侵害权益”（即违法性）为责任构成的核心要件，以“过失侵害绝对权”、“过失违反保护他人的法律”、“故意违反善良风俗”为三大类型的过错侵权法体系。“侵害绝对权”即推定违法，而“违反保护他人的法律”和“故意违反善良风俗”的违法性需要进行正面认定。通过三个兼顾操作性和适当弹性的类型化条款,可实现侵权法保护范围的相对开放性，兼顾现实需求和未来发展。第四章论述侵权法一般条款对民法体系的影响，从体系化视角对我国侵权法一般条款规范模式进行反思，并据此对一般条款的解释提出建议。我国《合同法》是德国模式的“大合同法”，而《侵权责任法》又是法国模式的“大侵权法”（对一般条款进行文义解释），两法对合同利益的保护存在重叠。对于责任竞合，民法学界存在法条竞合说、请求权竞合说和请求权规范竞合说，三种学说均有其局限性，都不足以解决我国的责任竞合难题，最理想的解决方案是尽量减少人为的责任竞合。我国只能通过限制过失侵权责任的保护范围，避免对合同法所保护的利益提供侵权法保护，即侵权法原则上仅保护绝对权。由于侵权法与人格权法之间的内在关联，，侵权法立法模式影响到了人格权法的立法模式。我国侵权法已规定了兜底性一般条款，未来人格权法应采具体列举模式。德国通过判例确立的一般人格权制度的功能仅在于弥补具体列举人格权种类的不足，在我国侵权法一般条款已为人格利益的保护预留了足够空间的前提下，人格权立法中不必再规定一般人格权制度。解释论上可以将人格权法对人格权的类型化列举解读为对侵权法一般条款具体化的方式，这种具体列举的人格权在侵权法中将给予最有力度和最具确定性的保护，减少了侵权法一般条款发挥作用的频率，从而有助于减轻司法的难度、增强侵权法的确定性。人格权法和侵权责任法都保护具体人格权，而纯粹人格利益的保护则完全委诸于侵权法一般条款。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】