公开道歉的强制执行问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-02 13:09

本文选题：公开道歉　切入点：正当性　出处：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：公开道歉的强制执行是法律责任和社会诉求的共生物。强制侵权人公开道歉并非报复行为,而是侵权行为人应当履行的一种法律责任,一种具有人道性质、富含道德建设意蕴的对侵权行为的矫正方法。在司法界,法院判决公开道歉的案件甚多,公开道歉对于维护受害人的尊严,恢复受害人的名誉,抚慰受害人的心灵具有重要作用。关于公开道歉的执行方式,实务界采取刊载澄清事实的声明、刊登判决被害人胜诉的启事或判决书内容的全部或一部分等。但仍有学者和实务界人士质疑公开道歉强制执行的正当性和强制性。因此,正确认识公开道歉强制执行的概念以及正当性,完善公开道歉强制执行的方式对于矛盾的缓和,纠纷的解决,名誉的恢复以及法律尊严的维护有重大意义。本文共有四个部分组成,分别为:第一部分为公开道歉强制执行的概述,主要论述了公开道歉强制执行的概念、正当性及其相关理论的分析。公开道歉的强制执行是指根据当事人的要求,法院判令责任人在某个网站、某个报纸、杂志或者是其他公共媒体上面刊载道歉声明或者公告判决书中关于赔礼道歉的主要内容。本文认为公开道歉强制执行是为了恢复被害人的社会名誉,并非要求侵权者诚挚道歉,并不涉及人格高度发展相关信念,并不会侵害良心自由。我国法律虽然没有规定良心自由,但是保障人权写在我国宪法中,而良心自由和思想自由是人权的重要内容,但任何自由都是要有限度的。公开道歉强制执行的正当性不在于其是否限制了人的自由,而在于这种限制是否合理,手段是否合法。强制执行公开道歉是要求侵权行为人对自己先前的侵权行为承担侵权后果。当我们将强制道歉的行为与侵权的原因联系起来,我们就能够理解强制公开道歉的正当性了。第二部分论述公开道歉强制执行存在的问题。在司法实践中公开道歉责任强制执行方式多样化,直接导致司法尺度不一,有碍维护生效法律文书的严肃性、权威性和终局性。本部分主要针对实践中执行方式的不统一而提出强制执行公开道歉的具体方式。主要有说服教育、替代执行、间接执行以及赔偿执行。第三部分对域外相关立法进行比较考察,日本及我国台湾地区认为公开道歉强制执行是恢复名誉的适当处分,对公开道歉强制执行持支持的态度;英美法系国家虽然对公开道歉的强制执行没有明文规定,但是实务中强制执行公开道歉仍有适用,而在理论上对其研究有加强的趋势。第四部分对公开道歉强制执行的程序完善进行论述,我国现行法对公开道歉强制执行没有明确的规定,使司法实务执行方式千差万别,有损法律的权威。因此,我国应加强对公开道歉强制执行的立法。在执行措施上,法院首先应坚持强制执行与说服教育相结合的原则,尽量说服被执行人自动履行。经过多次教育无效,义务人拒绝履行可替代行为的,法院可以替代执行。对于不可替代执行,如果债务人拒不履行,其性质上已是妨害执行,执行机构可根据有关法律规定对其采取罚款、拘留等强制措施,促使其履行义务。由于间接强制的强度最大,在万不得已的情形下方可适用之。
[Abstract]:A total of biological enforcement public apology is the legal responsibility and social demands. The infringer is not compulsory public apology for retaliation, but the tortfeasor shall be a legal responsibility, a humanitarian character, method of correction of tort is rich in moral construction meaning. In legal circles, the court case of public apology a public apology for the maintenance of the victim's dignity, restore the victim's reputation, comfort to the victim has an important role. A public apology to the executive, practitioners to take published clarification statement, published notice or judgment in favor of the contents of the verdict of all or part of the other. But there are still those scholars and practice community questioned the legitimacy and enforcement of mandatory public apology. Therefore, the correct understanding of the concept of public apology to enforce and improve the legitimacy, public apology The enforcement to relieve the tension, dispute resolution, is of great significance to safeguard the reputation and restore the dignity of law. This paper consists of four parts, respectively: the first part is an overview of public apology for enforcement, mainly discusses the concept of public apology for compulsory execution, validity analysis and related theory enforcement. Public apology is defined according to the request of the parties, the court ordered the responsible person on a website, a newspaper, magazine or other public media published above the main content about the apology apology or announcement of the verdict. This paper argues that public apology enforcement is to restore the social reputation, is not required the infringer sincere apology, do not involve beliefs related to high development of personality, and not against the freedom of conscience. Although China's law does not require a conscience, but Paul Human rights written in the Constitution and freedom of conscience and freedom of thought is the important content of human rights, but any freedom is limited. The legitimacy of public apology enforcement is not its whether to restrict people's freedom, but that this restriction is reasonable, whether it is the legal means to enforce a public apology. Requirements of tort shall bear tort consequences for their previous violations. When we will be forced to apologize and tort causes together, we can understand the legitimacy of the compulsory public apology. The second part discusses the problems of enforcement of public apology. In judicial practice, public apology enforcement mode diversification, directly in judicial unstandardization, to safeguard the integrity of the effective legal instruments, authority and finality. This part mainly focuses on the unity of means of implementation in practice and put forward Enforcement of specific public apology. The main way of persuasion and education, alternative execution, execution and execution. Third indirect compensation part of the relevant legislation of extraterritorial comparative study, Japan and China's Taiwan region that public apology enforcement is to restore the reputation of the appropriate punishment, a public apology to enforce the attitude of the support; although the countries of Anglo American law system not to enforce a public apology expressly, but in the practice of enforcement of public apology are still applicable, but in theory it has the tendency to strengthen. The fourth part of a public apology for enforcement of the perfect procedure are discussed, the current law of our country public apology to enforce no clear regulations to judicial practice perform vastly different ways, damage the authority of the law. Therefore, our country should strengthen the enforcement of public apology legislation. In the implementation of measures, the court should first Adhere to the compulsory execution combined with persuasion and education principle, try to persuade the debtor to perform automatic. After repeated education is invalid, obligor refuses to perform alternative action, the court can replace the execution. For irreplaceable execution, if the debtor refuses to perform, the nature is enforcement, enforcement agencies can take a fine of according to the relevant laws and regulations, detention and other compulsory measures, to fulfil its obligations. The indirect mandatory maximum strength, can be used under the situation cannot but.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D913

【相似文献】