【作者】 李景义；

【导师】 王歌雅；

【作者基本信息】 黑龙江大学 ， 民商法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 罗马法包含朴素的人格权理念，“带有强烈身份性与等级性”的人格概念得以产生。自然法学说改变了罗马法中以身份作为衡量人格标准的缺陷，剔除了人格中的身份限制，将人格权视为“天赋人权”。随着社会历史、哲学理论、法学思想的发展，至基尔克《德国私法》的出版为止，人格权从概念到理论基础，从具体人格权的基本构成到一般人格权理论等人格权的基本理论已经形成。国内外学者展开了对人格权概念、特征、要素、内容的深入研究。自德国司法实践中产生一般人格权概念以来，人格权从理论上被分为一般人格权和具体人格权，但一般人格权、具体人格权概念的内涵和外延均存在模糊性。我国的人格权理论从国外移植借鉴而来，在学界存在诸多争议。首先，是人格权体系之争。关于一般人格权与人格权、具体人格权之间的关系，存在两种观点，一种观点认为人格权是对各种特定人格权利的抽象概括，一般人格权与具体人格权是一种抽象与具体的关系。另一种观点认为，一般人格权与具体人格权，是相互补充的关系。其次，是人格权权利属性之争。有基本权利说、民事权利说和双重属性说。人格权兼具宪法性基本权利及私法性民事权利属性。就产生基础而言，人格权属于宪法性基本权利。而在实证意义上及权利保护层面，人格权更应当作为一项民事权利来对待，并完成人格权的私法确认。只有通过私法确认，才能落实宪法中的人格权，实现对人格权的全面、充分保护。再次，一般人格权性质之争。学界对一般人格权性质观点不一，权利说、法益说、法律条款说、法律原则说、人格关系说不一而足。在不同学说内部，也存在不同观点和主张。最后，是人格权立法之争，主要涉及人格法益权利化问题、人格权入法归属问题、人格权法独立成编问题以及人格权列举及新型人格权保护问题。当下，民法典制定及人格权立法已经成为我国民事立法的热点问题。在民法典制定的背景下，如何突破人格权的理论争议，通过立法确立人格权并进行合理的架构是本文研究的重点。人格权的立法确认有其法哲学基础、法理学基础、民法基础，对人格权进行立法确认已经成为学界的共识。基于对一般人格权性质考察、立法考察、功能考察、司法实践探究，笔者主张废除一般人格权；通过对具体人格权概念进行辨析，考察具体人格权概念的实质，笔者认为应当废除具体人格权概念。本文对人格权的体系的架构，以废除一般人格权和具体人格权概念为前提。将“人格权”作为上层概念，设定为此类权利的总称，在民事权利体系内与财产权相对应，并处于同等地位。其下位概念应包括姓名权、名誉权、荣誉权、生命权、健康权等不同的人格权类型，具体包括经立法确认和司法实践总结的人格权，而学理总结的人格法益则通过间接保护或人格权保护一般条款得以实现。在立法选择方面，人格法益的权利化、在多大范围内权利化、人格权的私法确认、独立成编以及人格权无法穷尽列举及新型人格权的保护问题等等都是本文重点阐述的内容。立法模式方面，以人格权保护一般条款代替一般人格权，以人格权类型化模式代替具体人格权，既符合人格权体系的逻辑结构，又能实现人格权的全面保护。人格权理论的未来，需要通过民法典中的人格权立法得以实现并得到最终确认。在前述人格权体系之下，我国人格权法的制定采纳“人格权保护一般条款+类型化”的新型立法模式，全面实现对法定化人格权和新型人格法益的保护。人格权单独成编符合民法典的逻辑性要求，能较好实现人格权法的体系化。具体的制度设计应当坚持“总分”结构，总则对整个人格权编具有支架意义，其内容统摄适用于所有的人格权类型。分则则按照人格权的类型化进行体系构架。而人格权立法后，新型人格权保护问题，则应当交由法解释学和司法实践去处理。更多还原

【Abstract】 Roman law contains a simple philosophy of personality rights, and “with theremarkable feature of identity and grade”, the concept of personality was created. Thetheory of Natural law corrected the defects in Roman law which seems identity as astandard measure of personality, that is to say, the identity constraining to thepersonality had been got rid off from then on. Accompanied with development of socialhistory, philosophy theory and legal thoughts, up to the publication of “German PrivateLaw” by Gierke, the personality rights as an academic concept has been formed notonly from the basic construction of concrete personality right but the theoriesconcerning general personality right. Domestic and foreign scholars have conductedin-depth study of personality rights in terms of concept, characteristic, elements andcontent. Since its concept was produced form German judicial practice, personalityrights are divided into general personality right and concrete personality right inacademic theory. However, whether connotation or extension, both the concepts ofgeneral personality and concrete personality are still vague.Our theory of personality rights, which exists many academic arguments, comesfrom abroad. The First argument is about the system of personality rights. Concerningon the relationship among general personality right, personality right and concretepersonality right, there are two points of view: some one believed that personality rightsare abstract summarizes various specific personality rights, that is to say, therelationship of general personality and concrete personality is the one of the abstract andthe specific. The others believed that general personality and concrete personality aremutually complementary relationship. The second argument is about attribute of thepersonality rights, which are considered to be basic rights, civil rights or double rightsin different. Personality right is both a civil right and a constitutional right: consideringthe foundation of its produced, it is a constitutional right; thinking about empiricalmeaning and legal protection, its attribute of civil right should be confirmed. Onlyidentified by private law, could constitutional personality right be specified, andprotected fully and comprehensively and fully. The third argument is the nature of personality right. Different perspectives are presented on the issues about the nature ofgeneral personality rights: right, interest, legal provision, personality relationship, andevery view has their branches with different views or ideas respectively. The lastargument is about legislation of personality right, mainly related to transform thepersonality legal interests into legal rights, arrangement of personality rights in the Code,independent position of personality right in the Code, and cited rights and protection ofnew type personality rights.Recently, formulating the Code of Civil Law and personality rights has become ahot issue of civil legislation. Under the background of drafting Civil Code, the focus ofthis study is how to break the controversial theory of personality rights, how toestablished personality right by legislation and frame it reasonably. The Legislation ofpersonality rights, which has been approved in common, based on philosophy,jurisprudence and civil law. Based on the investigation of general personality on nature,legislation, function, judicial practice, the author advocates the abolition of generalpersonality; through the discrimination of concrete personality concept, and thesubstantive investigation of concrete personality, I believe that the concept should beabolished. With the premise above, this dissertation constructs the system of personalityrights. We consider " personality rights ", the general term for such right, as the topconcept, and treat it the same with civil rights, a corresponding concept. Its lowerconcept should include different personality right type, such as right to name, reputation,right to honor, right to life, right to health, specifically including personality rightsthrough legislative confirmation and judicial practice summary, while the personality oflegal interests summarized by theory could be protected through indirect measurementor general terms. In the respect of legislative selection, this dissertation would focus onissues such as right transform of personality legal interests, to what extent that legalinterest is transformed, the choice of private law confirmation, independent compiled inthe Code, exhaustive list of personality right and protection of new type personality. Inthe respect of legislative model, we argue to adopt the general terms of generalpersonality right protection instead of general personality, and personality rights typedmode instead of concrete personality. Both of the arrangement is in accordance with logical structure of personality rights system, and could achieve full protection ofpersonality rights.The future of personality right theory would come true and be confirmed finallythrough personality right legislation in the Civil Code. Under the previous system ofpersonality rights, our legislation would adopt "general terms of personality rightprotection+type terms" as a new legislative model, and fully realized protection ofpersonality rights and legal interests of the new personality. Independent compile ofpersonality right could achieve a better logic construction for the Civil Code, and abetter system for legislation. The specific design of institution should adhere to the"summary-detail" structure, that is to say, the general principle as a bracket unify itscontent applies to all types of personality rights, and the specific provisions would beconstructed according to typed personality rights. However, the issues on protection ofnew types of personality rights should be addressed by legal hermeneutics and judicialpractice.更多还原