德国反不正当竞争法私法属性的历史和理论建构(上)

The Historical and Theoretical Constructions of the Private Law Nature of German AntiUnfair Competition Law

反不正当竞争法的法属性和法品格问题是我国反不正当竞争法研究中亟待加强的基础理论问题。作为世界上第一部成文反不正当竞争法和大陆法系国家法律移植的主要对象,德国反不正当竞争法诞生与发展的全过程都贯穿着私法属性。在这一历程中,处理与侵权行为法的关系始终是反不正当竞争法发展的关键问题。借助民法的观念与技术,德国反不正当竞争法的发端经历了在法定主义、绝对权保护一般条款和悖俗侵权保护一般条款之间的模式选择,并最终以悖俗侵权一般条款和类型化列举为规范基础,通过对"商业关系"、"竞争目的"和"善良风俗"等规范用语的功能化、客观化、社会化和类型化解释,构建起贯彻私法属性的反不正当竞争法特殊侵权体系。除此之外,与常见误解所迥异的是,消费者利益、潜在竞争者利益和公共利益等并不是德国反不正当竞争法所保护的直接法益,对相关利益的保护仅仅是市民社会商业化背景下反不正当竞争法适用的外部性效果。这种外部性效果的实现,仍然基于演进的民法技术和观念,而不是引入国家干预和行政规制的思维。因此,德国反不正当竞争法对竞争秩序和公共利益等分散利益的保护不但不使其成为一部市场规制法,更加凸显其私法属性。

Being the first written unfair competition law worldwide and the object of the civil law system legal transplantations, the private law nature runs throughout the whole structure and evolving process of German Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In this very process, the key point of the foundation and the development is always the relationship between the anti-unfair competition law and torts. Using the concepts and techniques of civil law, the origin of German Anti-Unfair Competition Law has successfully undergone a mode choice between the three general tort clauses in the German Civil Code. Eventually, benefited from the functionalized, objectified, socialized and classified interpretation methods, the system of anti-unfair competition law was built and further developed as a special type of torts. Moreover, it is widely misunderstood that the interests of consumers, potential competitors and mass public are included in the direct scope of protection under German Anti-Unfair Competition Law. However, protections upon these interests is merely the external effect of the law enforcement under a commercialized society. The realization of such external effect is still based on the evolving civil law philosophies and techniques, instead of the introduction of the administrative law. Therefore, the protection of the competition interest and public interests by German Anti-Unfair Competition Law did not make it a market regulating law, but highlighted the private law nature instead.