“贞操权”的民法保护研究

The Civil Law Protection of Sexual Autonomy

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

付圆圆

导师:

张力

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

贞操权;责任构成;贞操权保护;权利泛化

摘要:

“贞操权”亦称作性自决权,是自然人主体享有的、应受法律保护的重要利益。作为与人身紧密相关的绝对权,“贞操权”不仅是刑法上应予以保护的人格权,也理应受到民事法律规范的重视。然而,由于对现代意义的“贞操权”研究较晚,立法并未将其列为一项独立的人格权并给予相应的保护。在现行法律规范体系下部门法之间亦不衔接,民法、刑法、行政法之间并没有构建一个完整的规范体系。考察民法规范,也并未涉及“贞操权”的保护细节问题,侵害“贞操权”的损害赔偿问题仍无定论。对犯罪行为造成的物质损失予以赔偿虽已得到刑法明确规定,但对犯罪行为造成的精神损害赔偿问题却并未解决。部门法之间的不衔接使得对于性利益的保护出现缺漏,进一步导致司法实践的不统一,动摇了法律的统一性与权威性。本文第一部分从概念着手,阐明“贞操权”的性质与地位;第二部分对我国台湾地区及国外性利益的民法保护路径进行分析;第三、四部分结合案例对于侵害“贞操权”的行为表现与责任构成要件做相关阐述;最后对我国的保护现状加以评述,并提出建议。笔者通过对“贞操权”的全面研究,分析我国规范目前提供的保护的欠缺之处,基于对案例与国外法的相关规范的研读与总结,寻求“贞操权”的保护路径。本文着重分析侵犯“贞操权”的责任构成要件以及侵权行为的主要表现形态,对以欺诈方式构成的侵害“贞操权”作了详细论述。有观点认为,“贞操权”实际上是“权利泛化”的产物,本文将对“贞操权”属于权利泛化的观点加以回应,从形式、实质两方面出发,结合立法现状、司法实践推论出“贞操权”并非权利泛化现象,并针对权利泛化的形成原因提出如何规制权利泛化。

学科:

民商法学

提交日期

2018-09-03

引用参考

付圆圆. “贞操权”的民法保护研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2017.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • “贞操权”的民法保护研究
  • dc.title
  • The Civil Law Protection of Sexual Autonomy
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20140301050444
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 付圆圆
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2017
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 张力
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 贞操权;;责任构成;;贞操权保护;;权利泛化
  • dc.subject
  • Right of Chastity;;Formation of Liability;;The Protection of Chastity;;Generalization of Right
  • dc.description.abstract
  • “贞操权”亦称作性自决权,是自然人主体享有的、应受法律保护的重要利益。作为与人身紧密相关的绝对权,“贞操权”不仅是刑法上应予以保护的人格权,也理应受到民事法律规范的重视。然而,由于对现代意义的“贞操权”研究较晚,立法并未将其列为一项独立的人格权并给予相应的保护。在现行法律规范体系下部门法之间亦不衔接,民法、刑法、行政法之间并没有构建一个完整的规范体系。考察民法规范,也并未涉及“贞操权”的保护细节问题,侵害“贞操权”的损害赔偿问题仍无定论。对犯罪行为造成的物质损失予以赔偿虽已得到刑法明确规定,但对犯罪行为造成的精神损害赔偿问题却并未解决。部门法之间的不衔接使得对于性利益的保护出现缺漏,进一步导致司法实践的不统一,动摇了法律的统一性与权威性。本文第一部分从概念着手,阐明“贞操权”的性质与地位;第二部分对我国台湾地区及国外性利益的民法保护路径进行分析;第三、四部分结合案例对于侵害“贞操权”的行为表现与责任构成要件做相关阐述;最后对我国的保护现状加以评述,并提出建议。笔者通过对“贞操权”的全面研究,分析我国规范目前提供的保护的欠缺之处,基于对案例与国外法的相关规范的研读与总结,寻求“贞操权”的保护路径。本文着重分析侵犯“贞操权”的责任构成要件以及侵权行为的主要表现形态,对以欺诈方式构成的侵害“贞操权”作了详细论述。有观点认为,“贞操权”实际上是“权利泛化”的产物,本文将对“贞操权”属于权利泛化的观点加以回应,从形式、实质两方面出发,结合立法现状、司法实践推论出“贞操权”并非权利泛化现象,并针对权利泛化的形成原因提出如何规制权利泛化。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • "Right of Chastity" also called "sexual autonomy" or "virginity right",is a significant sexual interest entitled to civil subject and protected by law.As an imperium closely related to human body,right of chastity is not only a right of personality that deserves the protection of criminal law,but also should be mentioned by civil law.However,because of the study of right of chastity relatively late,the legislation did not protect it as an independent right.Departmental law under current legal system is not coordinate,between civil law,criminal law and administrative law,there is not a complete system of norms.The detail of the protection of "chastity" is not involved in civil law provisions,the issue of compensation resulted from damages that caused by infringement is still inconclusive.Criminal law has clearly stipulated that it compensates for the material damage,but ignores the compensation for mental damage caused by criminal acts.The discordance of departmental law has resulted in the protection missing and the non-uniform judicial practice,finally shaken the unity and authority of the law.The first part of this article starts from the concept to clarify the nature and status of chastity;the second part analyzes the way of Taiwan district civil law and foreign civil law to protect sexual interest;the third and fourth parts elaborate the behavior of infringe and the constitution of liability for violate chastity with judicial cases;the last part reviews the current protection provisions of our country,and makes recommendations.Through a comprehensive study,this article try to find the way to protect chastity,based on the protection and loophole of current laws and regulations,the study and summary of judicial cases and the relevant provisions of foreign laws.This paper focuses on analyzing the constitution of liability for violate chastity,the main types of infringement,and makes a detailed discussion on the infringement of chastity which is caused by fraud.There are also views that right of chastity actually is the result of “generalization of right”.This paper will respond to this "generalization of right",from form to essence,combined with legislation,judicial practice,reason out the conclusion that right of chastity is not the result of generalization,and offer a proposal according to the causes of the "generalization of rights".
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D923
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2017-03-20
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2017-05-21
回到顶部