新型人格权价值共识度的司法判断

The judicial judge on the value consensus degree of new personality right

人格权体系具有开放性,社会发展需求使得新型人格权不断生成,新型人格权纠纷不断涌现,而司法实践中法官也常陷入司法确权与否的两难困境。为解决这一难题,新型人格权司法确认标准判断体系亟待建立,而其价值共识度是这一判断体系中的核心要素。从权利来源正当性、权利客体重要性、权利形态公示性、权利领域受侵害性和权利类型独立性五个层面构建其价值共识度的司法判断体系,以期能为相关纠纷司法实践提供可检验、有说服力的理论参照,从而夯实新型人格权司法论证的理论基础,强化相关纠纷司法裁判的可预见性。新型人格权确权范式可以归纳为权利嫁接型、权素扩张型、一般条款解释型和权利宣示型四种类型,不同确权范式产生不同价值共识度要求,其中权利宣示型确权范式对价值共识度要求最高,往往是对法官司法能力和智慧的重要考验。在具体司法判断时,既要根据每个层面价值共识度对新型人格权进行分析性评测,又要结合确权范式类型差异对其价值共识度进行整体性判断。

The personality right system is open,and the social development demand causes new personality right to produce and relevant dispute to emerge unceasingly,so the judge often falls into the judicial dilemma of confirming it or not.In order to solve this problem,it is urgent to establish a judicial confirming standard,and the value consensus degree is the core element of the standard.By constructing the judicial judging system of value consensus degree from five angles including the legitimacy of the right source,the importance of the right object,the publicity of the right form,the being infringed degree of the right field and the independence of the right type,we can provide a convincing theoretical reference in solving relevant disputes,consolidate the theoretical foundation of the new personality right judicial argumentation and strengthen the predictability of the relevant judicial decision.The right confirmation paradigm of the new personality right can be concluded into four types including the right being grafted one,the right element expanded one,the general clause being interpreted one and the right being declared one,and different paradigms have different value consensus requirement.The right being declared paradigm requires the highest degree of value consensus,which tests the judge’s judicial ability and wisdom.We should not only analyze the new personality right according to the different value consensus degree,but also make holistic judgment on the value consensus degree according to the differences among the right confirmation paradigms in the specific judicial judgment.