论我国一般人格权的保护及制度完善

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

陈华婕

导师:

李燕

导师单位:

民商法学院(知识产权学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

一般人格权;保护;不得比较;建议

摘要:

当前,世界各国对一般人格权制度的设立纷繁多样,各有特色,我国 亦在探索论证之中。有感于目前我国一般人格权制度在设立上存在的缺憾 以及该类案件在审理中给审判人员造成的困扰,本文拟以一个多年前因医 院的过失,两家相互错养孩子的“串子”案件为例,探讨一般人格权的本质 和特点,说明审判实践中我国民法对一般人格权的保护状况,结合国内一 些典型的案例,对我国一般人格权制度的完善提出建议,同时针对现阶段 的审判困难提出应对措施。 全文共分四个部分,共 22157 字。 本文的第一部分为一般人格权的本质及相关问题论证,该部分在简略 介绍了人格的词义由来、相关概念和发展状况之后,对一般人格权的本质 是权利还是法益进行了辨证和论述,分析了法益和权利的区别,对一般人 格权的法益性质进行确认,得出其本质是法益的结论,再由其本质是法益, 结合其特点——无论侵害人侵害的是受害人的身体还是精神,其保护对象 都会涉及到人类情感,再得出“一般人格权的救济途径是精神特质的物质 表现”这一结论,认为明确一般人格权保护对象的意义在于为一般人格权 提供了保护依据,同时可以有效扩大受保护的主体范围。在上述论述的基 础上,还论证了排除法人一般人格权的观点,认为法人不能成为一般人格 权主体。 本文的第二部分为我国一般人格权立法的现状和存在问题,该部分先 对我国目前关于一般人格权的法律规定进行收集、汇总,再提出案例,简 单介绍案情后,陈述案件审理过程中存在的身份权和人格权的讨论、一般 人格权制度设立和条文设计上存在与侵权法规范脱钩的问题和由此给审 判工作造成的困难。 本文的第三部分为国外一般人格权制度比较及我国制度轮廓设计,该 部分首先介绍了法国、德国、瑞士、越南这几个国家民法典中关于一般人 格权制度的概况及特点,对德国民法典和瑞士民法典的一般人格权制度进 行了比较,并结合日本民法的相关特点,从中得到启示,认为在一般人格 权的立法上,我国民法典的应然做法是:将一般人格权与具体人格权规定 于一处,并指明一般人格权的基本权利属性,将宪法关于人权的精神实质 体现于一般人格权的规定之中。本文的第四部分为现有立法条件下一般人格权制度的完善建议及应 对。该部分结合“串子案”中凸显的问题,分为两个层面考虑,先是从立法 层面考虑,提出以下几点建议:1、将人格权独立成编;2、将亲情权和安 宁权明确为具体人格权;3、将尚无法明确为具体人格权的一般人格权分 为生存类法益和精神类法益,根据两类一般人格权的特点分别予以保护; 4、规定赔偿数额的确定原则,排列考虑因素的位次顺序,避免保护功能被 弱化;5、适当改变补偿性机制传统,强调事前预防与惩罚性机制。在提 出上述建议后,分别论述了理由和意义。再从审判实务层次考虑,提出以 下几点应对措施:1、从提高办案人员的能力入手,认为审判人员应当加 强学习、大胆断案并提高办理精品案件的意识;2、从案件的解决方式上 考虑,结合一般人格权类案件的特点,认为加强调解工作是取得良好社会 效果的最佳途径;3、统一当地精神损害赔偿金上限,让精神损害赔偿金 的上限随死亡赔偿金及相应等级的伤残赔偿金标准变化而变化,一来可统 一当地赔偿标准,二来也可以随着当地赔偿标准的提高增加精神损害赔偿 金的上限,与当地经济发展水平相适应。

学科:

民商法学

提交日期

2025-12-04

引用参考

陈华婕. 论我国一般人格权的保护及制度完善[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论我国一般人格权的保护及制度完善
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 2025tj076
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 陈华婕
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 李燕
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 一般人格权 ;保护;不得比较;建议
  • dc.subject
  • generality right of personality;comparison ;suggestion
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 当前,世界各国对一般人格权制度的设立纷繁多样,各有特色,我国 亦在探索论证之中。有感于目前我国一般人格权制度在设立上存在的缺憾 以及该类案件在审理中给审判人员造成的困扰,本文拟以一个多年前因医 院的过失,两家相互错养孩子的“串子”案件为例,探讨一般人格权的本质 和特点,说明审判实践中我国民法对一般人格权的保护状况,结合国内一 些典型的案例,对我国一般人格权制度的完善提出建议,同时针对现阶段 的审判困难提出应对措施。 全文共分四个部分,共 22157 字。 本文的第一部分为一般人格权的本质及相关问题论证,该部分在简略 介绍了人格的词义由来、相关概念和发展状况之后,对一般人格权的本质 是权利还是法益进行了辨证和论述,分析了法益和权利的区别,对一般人 格权的法益性质进行确认,得出其本质是法益的结论,再由其本质是法益, 结合其特点——无论侵害人侵害的是受害人的身体还是精神,其保护对象 都会涉及到人类情感,再得出“一般人格权的救济途径是精神特质的物质 表现”这一结论,认为明确一般人格权保护对象的意义在于为一般人格权 提供了保护依据,同时可以有效扩大受保护的主体范围。在上述论述的基 础上,还论证了排除法人一般人格权的观点,认为法人不能成为一般人格 权主体。 本文的第二部分为我国一般人格权立法的现状和存在问题,该部分先 对我国目前关于一般人格权的法律规定进行收集、汇总,再提出案例,简 单介绍案情后,陈述案件审理过程中存在的身份权和人格权的讨论、一般 人格权制度设立和条文设计上存在与侵权法规范脱钩的问题和由此给审 判工作造成的困难。 本文的第三部分为国外一般人格权制度比较及我国制度轮廓设计,该 部分首先介绍了法国、德国、瑞士、越南这几个国家民法典中关于一般人 格权制度的概况及特点,对德国民法典和瑞士民法典的一般人格权制度进 行了比较,并结合日本民法的相关特点,从中得到启示,认为在一般人格 权的立法上,我国民法典的应然做法是:将一般人格权与具体人格权规定 于一处,并指明一般人格权的基本权利属性,将宪法关于人权的精神实质 体现于一般人格权的规定之中。本文的第四部分为现有立法条件下一般人格权制度的完善建议及应 对。该部分结合“串子案”中凸显的问题,分为两个层面考虑,先是从立法 层面考虑,提出以下几点建议:1、将人格权独立成编;2、将亲情权和安 宁权明确为具体人格权;3、将尚无法明确为具体人格权的一般人格权分 为生存类法益和精神类法益,根据两类一般人格权的特点分别予以保护; 4、规定赔偿数额的确定原则,排列考虑因素的位次顺序,避免保护功能被 弱化;5、适当改变补偿性机制传统,强调事前预防与惩罚性机制。在提 出上述建议后,分别论述了理由和意义。再从审判实务层次考虑,提出以 下几点应对措施:1、从提高办案人员的能力入手,认为审判人员应当加 强学习、大胆断案并提高办理精品案件的意识;2、从案件的解决方式上 考虑,结合一般人格权类案件的特点,认为加强调解工作是取得良好社会 效果的最佳途径;3、统一当地精神损害赔偿金上限,让精神损害赔偿金 的上限随死亡赔偿金及相应等级的伤残赔偿金标准变化而变化,一来可统 一当地赔偿标准,二来也可以随着当地赔偿标准的提高增加精神损害赔偿 金的上限,与当地经济发展水平相适应。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Nowadays, each of states around the world has their own unique system to govern the general right of personality, while China, as not different from the others, is working on the research and discussion over the same topic. In fact, existing defects as incorporate within current system in respect to right of personality had already impose certain confusion to the tribunals when they judging the case. Base on the scenario that two Chinese families raise other’s child due to gross negligence of hospital one year ago, the author seeks to conclude nature and characteristics of general right of personality and intent to brief the protection of general right of personality under applicable Chinese civil law. Besides that, by reference to certain domestic model cases, this article also raises a proposal to smooth and perfect the existing system for right of personality and provide certain methods for settlement of tough question as maybe faced by the tribunals. The first part of this article is screening the nature of right of personality along with discussion over certain related matters thereof. After briefing phrase resources, relevant definitions and development for right of personality, the article triggers a debate over the matter whether the nature of personality right should be defined as legal right or legal interest, analysis working is also processing on the difference between legal right and legal interest before the author reach a conclusion that the nature shall be determined the right of personality as a legal interest. In consideration of legal interest principal and each of its unique aspects, and regardless the person who suffered physical damage or mental injury from infringer, the object which such right seek to protect will cover human emotion to a certain extent. It is further suggested that “the remedy to right of personality is a mirror reflecting the materialize peculiarity of human emotion”, and it is also suggested that the meaning of clearly define the protection target of personality right is not only provide a fundamental basis for protection, but also extend the range for the principal who may enjoy these benefit efficiently. After further explore the topic, this article do not make a favorable decision to cover legal entity withinpersonality rights and exclude it from this benefit. The current conditions and existing issues of Chinese legislation on personality rights had famed out the second part of this Article. In this part, the authors collects and concentrates all applicable laws and regulations thereof, and supply certain cases for further discussion. After introducing the background, the article analysis paternity and personality rights as appeared in the proceedings, and express the idea that the difficulties as incurred during execution of judgment is because of inharmonic between the system establishment, provisions arrangement and tort regulation for the same topic under personality right. The third part of this Article is comparison on system of personality right together with a framework design. In the beginning of this part, This Article introduces the general information and each aspects of Civil Code among France, German, Swiss Confederation and Vietnam in the beginning of this part. Idea flashing from systems comparison between German Civil Code and Switzerland Civil Law after conclude the characteristics of Japan Civil Law, the author hold a opinion that generality and specific personality right need to be addressed in certain regulations, and identify the statue of basic right for generality of personality right, thereafter transfer, assign and reflect the spirit of human rights under Constitutional Law to the generality of personality right as carried by the specific regulations. The last part of this Article is mainly focus on the suggestion and settlement for the purpose of perfection of generality of personality right under current legislation conditions. By reference to all outstanding issues from Mis-raising Case, this part advise to take account of two layers consideration. One is drawing from legislation, where propose: 1. to conclude personality right into an independent charter; 2. to exclude parental right and right of live no disturb from personality right; 3. to classify other undefined specific personality rights into existence and mental legal interest respectively; 4. to avoid derogate protection power, setting the priority for different factors before fixing compensation principle; and 5. Emphasis on prevention and punishment system, and revise traditional compensation system reasonably.After addressing above mention suggestions, the article later discuss the reason and the meaning behind it. Another layers comes from practical law, where suggest the following methods: 1. to improve the ability of tribunal, who need to strengthen study and awareness to judge every case precisely; 2. To the reference of chrematistics and dispute settlement in respect to the personality right case, it is believed that conciliation shall be a best way to achieve considerable social impression; and 3. to unify the limitation for mental injury compensation, such amount shall be amended from time to time in respect to the standard amendment for death and injury compensation. By implementation these, it could justify local compensation standard and always catch up with local economy development as compensation standard is floating with local compensation standard.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-04
回到顶部