人格权法独立成编的体系效应之辨识

Personality Right Designed as Separate Title in Civil Code: From the Perspective of System Theory

就终极意义而论,说人格权为宪法权利抑或民事权利均属不当。但自实证法而言,究竟是由宪法,还是由民法来规定人格权,这只是一个法律分工问题,并不涉及任何价值判断。只要我们继续采取立法导向的规范化思路,则人格权的民法化就是必要的。自然人对其人格要素享有支配权,并且在现代社会中,人格权的商业化倾向也使得人格权与自然人间发生了主动分离,这就说明人格权已经不能再寄居于自然人编了。从《侵权责任法》的定位和人格权的特征及其现实需求来看,人格权法也不宜为《侵权责任法》所涵盖。因此自体系而言,未来我国的民法典应当继承《民法通则》的传统,坚持人格权法独立成编的体例。

In terms of its ultimate meaning, personality right is neither constitutional nor civil right. However, from the point of positive law, whether personality right is regulated by constitutional or civil law is merely an issue concerned with legal division having nothing to do with value judgment. Where we continue to take legislation-oriented way, personality right＇ s falling within the scope of civil law is inevitable. While natural persons are entitled to control elements of personality right, commercialization of personality right at present tends to separate it from natural persons, which implies personality right is no longer properly included in the Title of natural persons. Further, for the purpose of the Tort Liability Act and with respect to the features and current requests of personality right, personality right should not be covered by the Act either. From the stylistic perspective, personality right should form a separate title in the future Civil Code of the People＇ s Republic of China.