民法典法定救助义务条款的理解迷雾与消弭

Misunderstanding and Its Elimination of the Legal Relief Obligation Clauses in the Civil Code

《中华人民共和国民法典》第1005条首次在民事立法中明确了法定救助义务,然而由于规则的不完整性,法定救助义务范围出现纷杂的解读。究其根源主要在于对法定救助义务的内涵认识不一。实际上,法定义务并不局限于制定法上的规定,非制定法中所确立的义务也是其重要的来源,而救助义务在制定法中除了直接表达为“救助”之外,保护义务和报告义务中同样蕴含着救助之义。对于救助义务,无论是理论研究还是司法审判,对其来源的认可均有扩张的趋势。当下,可借助民法典司法解释制定的契机,在对人格权编解释时采用列举式的规定,将制定法、合同约定、先行行为、职责的自愿承担和当事人间的合理信赖关系确定为法定救助义务的产生根据,统一法定救助义务的来源,为法官裁判提供明确的法律指引。

Article 1005 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China establishes the legal relief obligation for the first time.However,due to the incompleteness of the rules,there are mixed interpretations of the scope of the legal relief obligation.In fact,the legal duty is not limited to the provisions of the statute law,and the duty established in the non-statute law are also important sources.In addition to the direct expression of the“relief”in the statute law,the protection duty and the reporting duty also contain the meaning of“relief”.As for the relief obligation,whether it is theoretical research or judicial trial,the recognition of its source tends to extend.At present,we can use the opportunity of the judicial interpretation of the Civil Code to adopt the enumerated provisions in the interpretation of the personality right,and determine the statutory law,contract agreement,antecedent act,voluntary assumption of the duties and reasonable trust relationship between parties as the basis of the legal duty to rescue.The source of legal relief obligation can be unified to provide clear legal guidance for judges.