摘要
人格权法定存在两种不同语境:一是立足于人格权类型、边界的明确,二是着眼于人格权的权利基础。人格权法定的肯定论多强调前者,否定论则主要从后者出发。事实上,人格权的基础既非民法赋予,也不是来源于宪法:宪法规范存在多种类型,人之尊严、人权不是宪法权利,而是实证权利的价值基础,其与民事权利仍然泾渭分明。从立法技术上看,人格权法定既有可能也有必要。民法、宪法对人格权采取了不同的类型技术,标准在于个人受义务主体侵害的可能性;民法人格权与宪法人格权均具有开放结构,但新生民事权利仅对宪法权利具有类型联想意义。在人格权类型和边界的界定上,"民法典(草案)"取得了重要成绩,但仍应作出相应修改。
There are two different contexts for the legalization of personality rights: one is based on the boundary and types of personality rights, the other is focusing on the foundation of personality rights. The legal affirmation of personality rights emphasizes the former, while the negation theory mainly starts from the latter. In fact, the basis of personality rights is neither given by civil law nor derived from Constitution: there are many types of constitutional norms, human dignity and human rights are not constitutional rights, but the value basis of empirical rights. Constitutional rights are still distinct from civil rights. From the view of legislative technology, the legalization of personality rights is both possible and necessary. Civil law and constitution adopt different technology of types for personality rights, in which the standard lies is the possibility of individuals being infringed by subject of obligation. Both personality rights in civil law and constitution have an open structure, new civil right has only a meaning of types association to constitutional right. In the definition of types and boundary for personality rights, the draft of Personality Right Part of Chinese Civil Code made important achievements, but still should be revised.
作者
曹相见
Cao Xiangjian(Tais han Rule of Law Research Institute,Shandong A gric ultural University,Taian 271018)
出处
《浙江社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第2期32-41,156,共11页
Zhejiang Social Sciences
基金
国家社会科学基金青年项目“人格权确权的伦理基础研究”(项目号：17CFX026)资助
关键词
人格权法定
民法宪法关系
人格权类型化
民法典人格权编
legalization of personality rights
relationship between civil Law and constitution
categorization of personality rights
Personality Rights Part of Chinese Civil Code
