论《民法典》个人信息保护规则蕴含的权利——以分析法学的权利理论为视角

On the Rights Contained in the Personal Information Protection Rules of the Civil Code:A Perspective from the Theory of Rights in the Analytical Jurisprudence

在分析法学的权利理论中,权利和义务的关联性原理得到了普遍认可。当然,这种关联性也存在例外。不存在对应权利的义务类型可被归纳为"对世义务"。《民法典》第1035条第1款第1项是一个义务性规则,确立了个人信息处理者在通常情况下征得自然人或其监护人同意的义务。该义务具有明确的相对人,不属于"对世义务",应存在对应的权利,即信息主体对同意与否的决定权。《民法典》第1037条更是采用授权性规则的立法表达,赋予了自然人查阅、复制、更正、删除个人信息的权利。可见,我国《民法典》虽然没有明确使用"个人信息权"一词,但在个人信息保护规则中已经存在具体的权利内容。《民法典》分别使用义务性规则和授权性规则的立法表达,有其合理性和重要意义。我国正在制定中的个人信息保护法拟设专章规定"个人在个人信息处理活动中的权利",其中明示的权利有着《民法典》上的渊源,在性质上具有私权属性。

It is a generally recognized principle that duties should correlate with rights in the theory of rights of the analytical jurisprudence.Of course,there are exceptions.The duties that have no corresponding rights can be denominated as"duties in res."However,the duty,established through an obligatory rule in Article 1035,paragraph 1,item 1 of the Civil Code of China,that personal information processors should obtain the consent of natural persons or their guardians under normal circumstances,does not belong to the"duties in res,"for it has a clear relative person—the information subject,who enjoys the corresponding right to decide whether to agree or not.What is more,it is explicitly provided through the authorization rule in Article 1037 of the Civil Code that natural persons have the right to access,review,copy,correct and delete their own personal information.Therefore,although the term"personal information right"is not explicitly used in the Civil Code,its specific content is already included through the personal information protection rules.It is rational and significant for the Civil Code to use obligatory rule and authorization rules respectively to specify the personal information rights,which explains the origin of the special chapter"Personal rights in personal information processing"to be included in China’s Personal Information Protection Law being drafted.Obviously,such rights are private in nature.