Tort Law in our legal position and its relationship with other parts of civil law - and compared with the traditional civil law issues

Keywords: Tort Law principles of tort Law claim Liability Legislation

Abstract: Tort Law is to learn from foreign experience in tort Law and summary of new results, and are created by Civil Law, "Civil rights - Civil obligations - Civil Liability," a continuation and development of model legislation. Tort Law in the future will be the Civil Code A separate compilation, and now need to coordinate the tort liability France, China and France in pArticular, other pArts of civil law and property law relationship. Tort Liability Act came out after the separation from the debt, there is some contact with the law of obligations. Tort Liability Act, the traditional civil tort Claims for damages tort liability for a variety of changes in the way, the responsibility principle followed changes accordingly. Real Property Law Chapter of protection under tort law with some of the responsibilities overlap manner, should be the first property law understanding of the relevant provisions of chapters for the lead standard, applicable to the relevant provisions of the Tort Law.



<<People's Republic of Tort Law "" (hereinafter referred to as <<Tort Liability Act ">) is a legal protection of civil rights is an important pArt of our civil law. In the civil law" tort "is a debt law component, Torts, Tort Law is an academic title. Tort Liability Act is a reference Torts Act and change it separating from the law of obligations, the formation of a separate new system is civil legislation of the initiative, is <<Civil Code "> the creation of civil rights - civil obligations - Civil Liability Legislation continuation and development of the future will be independent of a Civil Code. This theme is elaborated on in general << Tort Law "> understanding of Tort Law to clarify the position in civil law and its relationship with other pArts of civil law, wrong with your colleagues criticized the correction.

First, the Tort Liability Act's position in the Chinese Civil

(A) of tort law in the traditional legal position and the related theoretical analysis

1, the tort law in the traditional legal position

Tort law in the traditional legal position, can be divided into two types: one is French, one is German. <<French Civil Code>> PArt 3 of "obtaining property by various methods," Chapter 3 of which contract or agreement for the debt of the General Provisions. Chapter 4 as non-consensual debt incurred, which the first two violations and the potential for the infringement. <<French Civil Code>> the violations included in the "the various methods of obtaining property" chapter, the tort as a debt, pay attention to the property of the debt. tort provisions of the section is only five, hard to say is a legal, doctrinal also referred to as tort law.

French Civil Code will "contract or agreement of the Debt" and "non-consensual and occurs because of the debt," respectively, as the requirements of different types of debt. Contract or agreement of the bonds have a general rule, non-consensual and occurs because of the debt is no general provision on the French legislators to the debt contract or agreement with non-consensual and occurred due to the different nature of the debt as a debt.

<<French Civil Code>> Section 1382 provides that any act so that others injured when their behavior caused by the fault of the people, should bear the compensation responsibility of others. Contract or agreement set forth in the debt, the debt does not carry the negative damage liability. <<French Civil Code>> responsibility is provided for non-performance due to the debt and liability incurred due to violations, no civil liability for the term, but in case the concept of the use of civil liability. For example, in the "<French Civil Code >> title of a chapter in that case, as against the damages caused by neighboring relations, is a civil liability system, independent of other responsibilities, the concept of a fault, has nothing to do with the responsibility of [1].


<"German Civil Code>> prepared to take five, Part 2 for debt Relations Act, the first 6 chapters (before the current Civil Code, Chapter 7) is the general provisions on the debt, Chapter 7 (the current Civil Code as Chapter 8) as "the relationship between various types of debt", a total of 25 (currently 27 Civil Code section), the relationship between tort as a variety of debt, out in the last section, a total of 29 (the current Civil Code).

German civil law provisions on the debt for a variety of general debt, including Torts, which the French Civil Code to the debt contract or agreement with non-debt incurred by separate agreement provisions are different. The subject of a tort is the obligation of damage compensation, the responsibility of the main provisions in the use of "responsibility" concept, for example, for the affairs of people and assume the responsibility of supporting, monitoring duties and responsibilities of people.

German civil law in the responsibility and the responsibility of the French Civil Code in the way of damages in common is that all, all belong to the field of debt law. The difference is that different legislative style, French civil law distinction between liability and non-performing debt tort liability, the German civil law violations the relationship between various types of debt listed in the last section, and the debt contract in the same chapter, does not distinguish between non-performing debt obligations and tort liability. <"German Civil Code>> there is no civil liability in the term debt and obligations of German Civil basically no more than distinguish between the three that have one thing in common, that is, the natural distinction between debt and debt. natural discharge of debt is the debt or not, the two are often universal. in the relationship between debt and responsibility, the system can be called the German Civil Code binding mode with the responsibility for the debt, he has a profound theoretical basis.

2, the tort law as a debt component of the theory of law

The relationship between the debt and responsibility, there are many scholars discussed can be divided into three, said: inseparable, said the debt and responsibility, responsibility that includes debt, debt that includes responsibility. [2] decided by the debtor, the debt is usually linked with the responsibility . And elsewhere in the law is often just to avoid the repeated use "of the law without interference, is no obligation debt, the debt is usually the responsibility of talking about the debt. There was a German scholar said, is" responsible "sometimes with the" burden of debt "synonymous with. this burden of debt." [3] Some scholars said that the modern law of obligations from the point of view, creditor relations from a combination of debt and responsibility. [4] German civil law is a typical combination of debt and the responsibility system.

Responsibility on the German civil law has three meanings: (1) liability obligations of the debtor liable for damages (2) responsibility is to all of the debtor of its property (in principle) for the implementation of security for a debt; (3) responsibility is to force the debtor to pay the debt means. [5] on the second layer of meaning that is the responsibility of civil responsibility of the property. responsibility for the third level of debt means that the means to force the debtor to perform, which means a layer of close contact with the second meaning, "the concept of the responsibility means not the obligation, but in the premise, it is the obligation of people involved in the obligation due to the property by the scope of enforcement. "[6]

Whether the debt on the German civil law has Property? Debt effective value of the premise of whether the interests of a propertied, or at least is worth protecting the interests of creditors, the debtor settled develop <"German Civil Code>> period for the authority made a negative answer to this question, but the Civil Code does not expressly provide, the Drafting Committee that this is not otherwise suffice. [7] This is explained later in an academic nature and function of debt left the room. The actual scholars on the nature and function of debt are generally from the property and Economic discourse. that the purpose of debt law is to make money, goods or services, and other subject matter in motion, and the law of obligations as part of the Economic and social order, described . [8] will be the subject of various contracts summarized in the abstract ---- commodities under the price of gold nor the difference. This is the relationship between the statutory debt, including infringement is no exception. [9] will be infringing the provisions of German civil law Debt Law Code in a variety of debt relations, and trading, loans and other forms of debt tied commodity exchange, indicating that the German legislators to highlight the violations outlined in the commodity price of gold under the transaction-oriented nature of Torts, and embody the principle of private autonomy has its rationality.

The responsibility of German civil law is a violation of debt obligations, the way is the responsibility of damages, damages, liabilities, also known as damages. As the responsibility on the way to civil damages, property damages with the nature of the debt it is taking German civil law the Integrated reason and responsibility. in the development of the German Civil Code of the times, only way to be able to solve civil damages resolves a dispute that can adapt to the needs of society at that time. In addition, the removal of the provisions of the German Civil Code and not as a claim against the claims limited to the protection of property rights, reflects the personality of the civil rights and other rights protection is not sufficient to reflect the limitations of legislation, which does not distinguish between debt and responsibility is the reason.

However, do not distinguish between debt (an obligation) and responsibility legislation in the history of the world during a certain period the laws of some countries and regions, which is not universal. German civil law mainly in the successor formed on the basis of Roman law, debt and responsibilities and the pattern is the Roman law does not distinguish between the successors of debt and responsibility. Roman obligatio has three meanings: the protection of the legally binding obligations; debtor's obligations; right holders rights. [10] Roman law no difference between the debt and responsibility, because what? this can be analyzed from three aspects: First, focus on debt Roman Property, contract (arising from a cause of debt) has the property of the debt, breach of contract is the responsibility of the property, Private guilty (another reason why have debt) also has the property of the debt, the difference is not meaningful debt and responsibility. The second is that debt is Roman law locks, pay attention to debt legally binding. Contract Law of the debt is locked and private debt, too, is guilty of the lock, so there is no distinction between debt and responsibility. Third, the law on the concept of reason. Although it can be found from the Roman law the rights, duties and responsibilities specified duties and responsibilities of the origin of these three concepts, but it was not right, indeed the concept of these three concepts with the same word obligatio expression, indicating that the legal concepts and theoretical limitations.

From the more ancient than the Roman law of the State of oriental civilization can be seen that the concept of distinction between debt and responsibility. Ancient <<Zhou>> have responsibilities (debt) records. [11] <<Zhou Tian Guan Little Zion>> on, saying: "Listen, said responsibility for Fu Do." Xuan cited Zheng Secretary for Agriculture says: said duties, that the loan to. Fu do, that the volumes are, hearings responsible persons to volumes determined the. borrowing contract form Fu is not. Fu Fu the constraints on the instrument. Do not, do not for two, two and one each also. [12] <<Annotations on>> said: "debtors, not a move that thing, according to order or less reasonable public or private property, is of no payment default by those who, more than one piece goods .. "in Tang points of interest-bearing loan contract, the two non-interest bearing; interest-bearing contracts that" the move ", said the interest-free lease" liabilities. " [13]

Ancient China's "debt" used in the lending relationship, the core idea is debt, debt repayment. Emphasized the principle of two ancient and contract, prohibition of forced; requirements of good faith, prohibit fraud. Under the law, does not fulfill a contractual obligation, not only compensation for loss, detention and other compulsory measures are often taken. [14] Song of the private lending government to take "either by private contract, not the official reason" policy. [15] and said, "the emphasis on two and" by any private contract, is not the official reason "that requires contracting parties to define their respective obligations bear, do not fulfill the obligation of contracts, the official was to be mandatory, which are reflected in the debt and the concept of differentiated responsibilities.

Babylon <<King Hammurabi Code> "(about 1792-1750 BC) is the ancient Oriental is one of the most valuable historical data, is quite full of the most ancient code of laws, he than the famous Roman <<twelve Tables, Law "> as early as 1300 years. The codes use the" debt "of the terms are (in order of the order of law):" to cover the debt, "" interest-bearing debt, "" creditor "," recourse debt money "," No Silver debt "," the claims of a valley or "," bears the debt, "" debt slaves "and so on. they reflect the contractual relationship with (in order of the order of law) trade, reciprocity, lease, loan, partnership, commission, storage, gift, contract, medical, employment and so on. Thus seen, "<King Hammurabi Code>> Kingdom of the commodity during the Babylonian Economic and legal have a higher level. from the Code as "debt" provisions of the word and expressions of view, the concept of debt for the loan contract, including the "Silver" or "valley" of the loan, that kind of money lending and borrowing.

<<King Hammurabi Code>> There are some mandatory provisions, for example, Article 90 provides that if the Freedmen debt, fixed interest-bearing, non-bank debt, while only grain, in accordance with the provisions of the King, Tamu card only should be calculated for each Kourou where a hundred cards, take Valley that interest. This is the will of silver into the valley of debt repayment of debt repayment. Article 121, Freedmen Freedmen hidden valley in the home, per year Kourou Valley should pay five cards of the warehouse rental, this is about the relationship between the obligations of the warehouse [16]

Ancient Germanic peoples are differences in national legal liabilities and responsibilities, that the debt was "when is" the debt can not be forced; when the debt is not generated when the responsibility to perform, "was the appeal to coercion." Germanic law of this study were Scholars of legal history has aroused interest in this issue, the competition of. the studies, in addition to other Germanic law, not only Greece, Babylon and other ancient techniques with this distinction, even in the Far East, China, Japan and other countries, also have These two concepts exist. [17] This article cited above the ancient laws of the Kingdom of China and Babylon is consistent with this conclusion.

Some countries have modern distinction between civil law obligations and responsibilities of the phenomenon. In addition to the French case has already been mentioned the concept of using civil liability, the 1991 debt through the new Civil Code of Quebec Civil Code has a chapter (Chapter 3), mainly about tort liability , and the responsibility of the general provisions of the contract. In 1995 the Vietnamese Civil Code published in the Code of civil obligations and civil contract, a section (Chapter 1, Section 3) is entitled to civil liability, the general provisions concerning civil liability.

To sum up, take responsibility for the debt combined with the legislative model, has its own rationale. However, from the legislative history of development, the legal theory on the modern rights, duties and responsibilities of the relations between the Theory of debt combined with the responsibility Legislation is not to learn from China's civil law.

(B) of Tort Law in our legal position and the theory and practice based on

In addition to <<Civil Code ">, the country's civil law as well <<Property Law Contract Law >>,<< Marriage >>,<< >>,<< Succession>" and "<Tort Liability Act">. Infringement Liability Act in the civil law system plays such an important position for our civil legislation first.

<<Tort Liability Act "> is a protection of civil rights laws, and its article 2, paragraph 1, against civil rights, tort liability pursuant to this Law. This is a general provision, which protects not only the civil rights including the rights enshrined in the law, and civil rights, including but not yet developed into the civil interests protected by law, the scope is very broad, such a provision has no precedent in civil law countries.

China's civil law system, on the theory and learn the German civil law, while the debt of German civil law and the responsibility of synthesis to the change, the creation of civil rights - civil obligations - civil liability model, "<Tort Liability Act"> this is the legislative model components.

Our civil legislation expressly provides that "civil liability", construction of civil rights - civil obligations - civil liability model began in July 1981 the draft civil law, legislation formally established civil rights - civil obligations - civil liability model issued in 1986 <<Civil Law >>. in the reform and opening up, left the legal concept is broken, and the civil law of civil legislation, are also open to ideas, and learn from foreign legislation opened the door, there was no national legislation by the experience of a single bound, but the broad reference, eclectic. This is our civil law to civil rights - civil obligations - the ideological roots civil law model.

After 1949, China's civil law is the main draw of the former Soviet Union, civil law, civil law does not distinguish between the former Soviet Union debt and responsibility. Later, the Soviet Union on the civil responsibility of scholars believe that the civil law are not limited to violation of debt responsibility, proposed the "Civil responsibility" and "civil liability" concept, [18] This is the <<Civil Code "> special chapter provides that" civil liability ", to take civil rights - civil obligations - Origin of Civil Law Civil pattern. This legislative model is based on the basic theory on the jurisprudence on the rights, duties and responsibilities of the principles of the relationship.

<<Civil Law "clearly provides for civil liability as well in order to meet the needs of trial practice. In 1981 and 1985 has issued a <" Economic Contract Law "," and "<Foreign Economic Contract Law">, these two laws Breach of Contracts with foreign economic contract makes provision for the responsibility, but the general lack of responsibility for breach of contract provisions. Moreover, the concept of people's civil rights reform and opening with the formation of the type of tort litigation and the number of cases increase, and the courts infringement cases lack proper legal basis. To meet the needs of trial practice, "<Civil Code"> special chapter provides for civil liability, including liability for infringement made more specific provisions. This is our civil law distinction between debt and duty to take civil rights - civil obligations - civil society and the legal practice model background.

<<Civil Code "> in the reform and opening up to meet the specific historical conditions of the urgent need for the development, and its system has the particularity of the content to be innovative, it is neither a civil legislation, guidelines and did not design system for the future development of the Civil Code structure. It is less than one year from the time of drafting to the enactment of reform and opening up the lack of practical experience, theoretical preparation is not sufficient, not without flaws. the provisions of the ten major methods of civil liability, but no way under the responsibility of different types were provided on the responsibility principle to form a variety of tort liability for ways to apply the general tort damages are four elements of the situation. in the trial of IPR cases highlighted in this issue, the Supreme Court's judicial interpretation to resolve the related problems, [ 19] Some of the problems addressed by theoretical explanations, some of the problems and the judge granted a legal basis for the concept of law to resolve. trial accumulation of practical experience and theoretical exposition of the gradual, for the development of Tort Law has laid a solid foundation.

Tort Law and the Separation of debt is based on rights, obligations and responsibilities of the legal principles of mutual relations. From the rights, obligations and responsibilities of the three relations, the purpose of rights and obligations of the means necessary to achieve the rights, responsibilities and obligations to promote human rights obligations of human rights protection to achieve, is a legal remedy. The purpose of civil law and basic task is to affirm and protect civil rights, and this is determined by the nature of civil law, said, "Civil Rights Act is", and its significance in this.

Between subjects from the civil legal relations, Generally, a party is the right person, the enjoyment of rights; the other party is the obligor, obligations, rights and obligations of both are complementary and fit together. A civil violation of obligations the principal or infringes on the rights of civil liability arises when the limitation period between the debt from legal protection, for which there is no real difference between the provisions of national law. to take responsibility for the debt and the distinction between civil law model allows a clear relationship between the duties and responsibilities. in social life, obligations and responsibilities sometimes do not make a distinction, but the law should be the second, the right holder the right to request responsible person liability, proceedings, when necessary, ask the court to force those responsible held accountable. liability, although a secondary means, but it is not optional.

Whole structure of legal norms from the rights, obligations, responsibilities are three indispensable, from the civil law structure as a whole, as well. To take responsibility for the debt and the combination of civil law, civil law model does not mean that there is no responsibility, but legislation in different forms only. to take responsibility for the debt and the distinction between the binding mode of the full debt and the debt is not entirely meaningful, in fact, do not take this pattern will not occur, because the lawsuit against the debt limit legal protection under national law for this no real difference. take differences between debt and obligations of civil law model can make clear the relationship between obligations and responsibilities. in social life, obligations and responsibilities sometimes do not make a distinction, but the law should strictly distinguish between the two. obligations and responsibilities the following differences: First, different in nature. obligation "when to" reflect the normal social order. when liability is not to generate. "obligation is the reason for the responsibility, the responsibility is as a result of breach of duty." [20] Responsibility does not reflect the normal social order, the responsibility shall be held liable to restore the normal social order. Second, different functions. obligation is the subject of rights is necessary to achieve the right conditions, usually the right one realization of the rights and obligations of people to fulfill their obligations exist, both as conditions. responsibility is to promote the obligor to fulfill their obligations to ensure realization of the rights of people supporting the right conditions. Third, binding different. obligations and responsibilities are binding, but binding of the extent and in different ways. obligation is binding human rights obligations people to create the necessary conditions for the exercise of rights, not infringe upon the rights of rightsholders. obligations do not infringe the rights of people to fulfill their obligations or the rights and obligations of people to become responsible. Binding on the persons responsible for the performance of the responsible person should bear the adverse consequences, if necessary, the judiciary will have the responsibility to take coercive measures.

Liability associated with legal sanctions and differences between both, accountability is divided into active and passive commitment to take the theory in two ways, has become the mainstream academic theory of jurisprudence. [21] According to the characteristics of civil liability, but responsibility should be distinguished and sanctions. civil liability is a prerequisite for civil sanctions, civil sanctions are a way of implementation of civil liability. For example, a civil liability for damages, the court ruled responsible for damages and enforcement is through civil sanctions, [22] According to the Civil the characteristics of responsibility, civil commitment can be divided automatically assume, assume the request and forced commitment.

It is noteworthy that, even in a combination of debt and responsibilities under German civil law context, some scholars have rights - obligation - the idea of ​​civil responsibility to say a conscious awareness of their responsibility and accountability. [23]

Characteristics of the ancient law of "responsibility center" and later "responsibility center" pattern of legislation was "obligation - responsibility" pattern of legislation replaced in modern times the rights, obligations and responsibilities to jointly become a key legislative, thus forming a right - obligation - the responsibility Legislative pattern. [25] Civil Code of civil rights - civil obligations - civil liability model, in line with legislative trends. [24] With the development of social economy and law, has developed the type of civil rights, the type of personality rights and intellectual property gradually increased. As high-tech development, tort approach, methods changeable that the scope of civil rights violations by the expansion of a deeper level. In this case, liability is limited to tort damages can not adequately protect civil rights, it is difficult to adapt to the needs of contemporary society, stop the infringement, removal of obstacles, elimination of dangers, such as tort liability rehabilitation methods for the protection of a variety of civil rights is particularly important. <<Civil Code "> therefore provides a variety of methods of civil liability," <Tort Liability Act "> the Tort Claims Act from the separated to provide a variety of tort liability method, which is away from the responsibilities and obligations, Tort Law and Practice of separation based on debt. <<Civil Code "> civil liability provisions of the law has become part of the culture, [26] After years of practice, civil rights - civil obligations - civil liability has become a civil judge the case of thinking, "<Tort Liability Act"> the promulgation and implementation, will be more shows Tort Law and the importance of the separation of debt law.

Second, tort liability law and the relationship between debt law

Tort Law Torts law is the reference and change, not the law of Torts negated Tort Claims Act law and existing differences, there are links.

(A) of the property from the Perspective of debt Tort Claims Act does not belong to the scope of

Kingdom of ancient China and ancient Babylonian debt borrowing relations between the law of property, the ancient Roman law from the provisions on debt (<<Twelve Tables "debt provisions) to develop a system of debt to mature, are that the law of obligations of property law. Modern tort law, the development of the debt, much of the property beyond the bonds of the trend. To take responsibility for the debt and the binding mode of German civil law, the property will not include debt of the scope of civil liability. Germany, Austria and other damage to the national law compensation to the principle of restitution, to monetary compensation for the exception. Some scholars believe that restitution is a direct method of compensation, monetary compensation is an indirect method of compensation. restitution many ways from a number of national legislation, jurisprudence and doctrine of the examples of view, examples of restitution are: return of the original; return the original and the amount of money available to cover interest; pay is the same kind of material damage; repair damaged property; cure diseases; correct advertisements; rehabilitation of reputation; withdrawal is harm to the idea of ​​insult or abuse of credit; destroy abuse secret letters copied; re-set to be deprived of the right; the court may issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant to implement, continue or restore damage to the plaintiff's conduct; in unfair competition cases, the court may ordered the defendant to stop using dishonest practices; a person whose act or omission by manufacturing a false impression, the illusion of a third party based on this and other actions implemented by the trust may be used against the false declaration of the producer and so on. Some scholars believe that, for purposes of restitution, it is concerned about the specific interests of the victim in fact suffered by the destruction of the interests concerned about the integrity of the victim, in fact, the performance of the destruction of many kinds of forms, there are that many restitution. [27] According to This way there will not have a lot of restitution of property, many do not have to reinstate the property of the debt are as damages, which the law of obligations is contradictory nature of property, serious impact on the scientific nature of debt law.

Savigny on the debt, made a brilliant exposition of the object, he pointed out that not all acts are suitable to become the object of debt; only such acts, that is, the value of its physical properties can be considered both from the personality, and can be considered is similar to the behavior of matter, it can become the object of debt. He further explained that the object does not fit into the behavior of debt is money that can not translate into the number of acts; at least its only non-real, to not fully way be considered as debt. [28] the nature of debt debt law is property law, national debt, the civil code system of content is property law that the law of obligations. Savigny also discussed from the legal relationship between the height of the property, he the property as the sum of property relations, he believes this is an important legal concept. He pointed out that this important legal concept of the composition of two conditions: "First of all, the right to contact a specific character is accidental , variable, so any property at a given point in time only under the premise it has a specific scope, and at different points in time they may have completely different content. Secondly, for general inspection of personal property, we can not considered as an integral part of the specific rights of property; and, through this abstraction, to our thinking, the property is converted into a same number of simple components. In addition, this abstraction of property makes the following circumstances not only possible but necessary: ​​that is the negative side of debt, that also involves the relationship between the debtor to the same property; .. if we can in this way as the debt component of the property, then we must admit that the overall property performance can sometimes be positive do not have the property of rehabilitation, does not belong to the scope of debt. the return of property to return the original essence of <<Tort Liability Act "> property not in accordance with the theory of Torts Law, its interpreted as a method of compensation expressed as a negative number sometimes, and sometimes expressed as completely neutral or zero. [29]

Savigny property as property relations will be the sum of the negative side of the debt, that debt is also included in the same property relations, and pointed out that the property can be expressed in three general forms. In this way, Savigny to systematically put forward the concept of total assets. understand the concept of total assets in order to understand the modern sense of the meaning of property and debts. For example, "bankruptcy debt" in the "production" refers to a specific number is to be understood as the money title, has been not "positive", not "zero", but "negative."

Savigny on the nature of debt and property rights are the property of the sum of property relations theory, the theory is based on debt law, debt law system is to construct a basic theoretical. Grasp the basic theory of debt law, debt law to construct a scientific system , well-designed General debt law to give full play to the role of debt law.

(B) has the property according to the law of tort liability provisions applicable to the general debt law

<<Tort Liability Act "> eight tort liability under way, stop the infringement, removal of obstacles, elimination of dangers, apology, and provisions to eliminate the return of two other tort liability in the way of restitution is compensation for loss of a methods. According to the principle of distinction between debt and responsibility, the nature of damages is tort liability, because the nature of the property in compensation for the losses, unless the law provides otherwise (eg, intentional infringement of civil rights liability claims shall not be offset by the infringer , the people, unless the court has ruled), the applicable general provisions of the law of obligations.

Some scholars have questioned: that tort liability is not a debt, why not say that breach of duty is not the debt? Distinction between debt and obligations under the principle of liability for breach of contractual obligations with the different nature of breach of contract may be forced to assume the debt discharge can not be forced. is also the responsibility of the nature of the breach of contract, breach of contract is the property because of liability, can be applied to the general provisions of the law of obligations, so the law should provide part of the contract in debt. definite This is important because different types of problems to be handled in different ways. Although mainly through breach of contract is usually responsible automatically assume or bear upon request of the creditors, but does not exclude the right to directly sue the creditor, asked the court to enforce such rights are not optional.

To sum up, debt is the essence of property, tort liability separate from the law of obligations, which do not have the responsibility of Property Act and the debt completely decoupled from the responsibility of the property in accordance with the law of the general provisions applicable to the law of obligations. This will purify the debt the content, so the law of obligations more scientific.

(C) from the general provisions of the Debt Law Tort Law and see the relationship between debt law

<<Civil Code "> Civil Rights Chapter 5 chapter is divided into five, of which one is the debt, including debt, general provisions, contracts, management, and no unjust enrichment because, for a total of 10 clauses. Although this section briefly, but These provisions establish a debt's status in civil law, plus <<Civil Code "> under tort liability, tort liability of this article describes the relationship between law and debt law the fundamental basis.

Law of Tort Law and the relationship between debt and the debt is mainly the relationship between the general provisions of law. Now I'm not yet formed a bond law system, debt outstanding problem is the lack of general provisions, debt, general provisions, including the performance of debt, debt security, debt transfer, debt transfer, the majority of debtors and creditors, debt elimination and so on. in the future civil code should be a General Obligation Law. General Obligation Law applies not only to the contract, without due management, unjust enrichment, tort liability in the way of compensation for the losses, and property relations, marriage and family relations, inheritance and intellectual property rights are likely to occur in a certain relationship between the claims and liabilities; company, partnership, notes, maritime, insurance, securities, bankruptcy and other laws and may occur in the relationship between credit and debt, savings , post, debt, donor behavior, reward advertising, sweepstakes, lottery tickets, and many relations, there is, or their own credit and debt. These are not unknown in the Civil Code debt claims, unless there are special provisions of law are applicable the provisions of General Obligation Law. Civil law if the debt is not a complete general provisions, debt law difficult to be fully functional and not the views of General Obligation Law is not only a lack of theoretical basis, and do not meet the needs of social reality.

Tort Law in damages is the responsibility of equal relations between subjects, with the property nature, therefore, unless otherwise specified, can be applied to the General Provisions of the law of obligations. With the Tort Liability Act, the law does not undermine the status of debt function, but to make more rigorous system of debt law, civil law system to make more scientific. modern debt law debt laws without a sound general principles, each one-way laws and regulations would be a mess and fragmentation; it is not a modern law of obligations, in fact, canceled debt in the form sense of law, tort law does not exist and the debt law relationship.

Third, tort liability and responsibility principle way

<<Tort Liability Act "> tort liability under the way to stop the infringement, eliminate prejudice, eliminate risk, return of property, restitution, damages, apology, eliminate the impact of rehabilitation and so on. This provision is open, the eight tort liability means limited to, the conditions are ripe when it comes to ways to increase other liabilities. This provision also provides special law tort liability means leaving other responsibilities, property repairs, and so on. Which can be described as narrow restitution. How to understand the meaning of the return of property? Civil law of property the broad and narrow sense. Broad property is property, the property relations that the sum of Savigny. In the possession of the land fill was excavated, space, and the leaves room for innovative legal practice.

"Tort Law"> eight responsibilities under way, each has its specific meaning, different from Torts law of damages. It is important to explain that the damages, restitution and return of property implications. Compensation for loss of principal refers to monetary compensation (not rule out the in-kind compensation), is different from the law of tort damages of debt wide range of content. restitution is ordered by the damage to personal property or real property back to its original state, including the personal property repair, restoration was completed lake level to repair the blocked channel contract, without due management, unjust enrichment and other relations, there is a broad problem of the return of property, each with their different nature, can not <<Tort Liability Act "> return of property under confused. should be <<Tort Liability Act "> required return of property understood as the return of immovable or movable property, including the conversion of a specific object of the money," <Tort Liability Act "> required the return of property and <<Property Law"> provides the return of the original connotation of the same.

<<Tort Liability Act "> Article 6 of the presumption of fault liability and fault liability, Article 7 of the no-fault (regardless of fault) liability. Tort Claims Act is the principle of liability for damages attributable to the principle of tort liability in any manner whatsoever for damages, tort law principles of liability law and Torts different principles of liability. different types of violations to bear the legal responsibility of different types, different nature of the breach of civil obligations of the need to take a different civil liability. different violations of civil liability to reflect the different nature of the acts of civil obligations, responsibilities require different constituent elements, the principle of imputation will be different.

<<Property Law "> in the" Property Protection "chapter sets out to return the original, removal of obstacles, elimination of dangers, restitution and damages and other claims, on the <<Property Law", "and" <Tort Liability Act "> under请求权之间的关系、归责原则和法律适用,有不同的理解:第一种理解认为,<<物权法>>规定的返还原物、排除妨害和消除危险是物权请求权,不以过错为前提. <<侵权责任法>>规定的停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险和返还财产是侵权责任 ,一般适用过错责任.这种理解理论根据不足 ,据此裁决有关案件不是最佳方案.第二种理解认为 ,<<侵权责任法>>是对侵权责任的一般规定 ,一般适用过错责任 ,法律有特别规定的适用过错推定或者无过错责任.<<物权法>>规定的返还原物、排除妨害、消除危险是侵害物权时应当承担的侵权责任的几项特别规定 ,物权法没有特别规定的 ,可以适用<<侵权责任法>>的一般规定.并认为 定物权优先效力的是物权的排他性 ,停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险、返还财产的责任方式应用于物权等绝对权时 ,可按照绝对权的效力来认定相应请求权的效力.这种理解有道理 ,据此裁决有关案件可谓快刀斩乱麻.

笔者认为 ,德国式的物权请求权在我国<<侵权责任法>>中体现为基于侵权行为产生的请求权的四种类型 ,即停止侵害请求权、排除妨碍请求权、消除危险请求权和返还财产请求权.这些请求权的构成要 件和作为物权请求权的构成要件没有区别.例如 ,返还财产 (即返还原物 )作为侵权责任方式 ,是物权的保护方式之一.因为<<侵权责任法>>已经与债法分离 ,不应将返还财产理解为侵权行为之债法上的侵权损害赔偿之债.

<<侵权责任法>>第 21条规定 ,侵权行为危及他人人身、财产安全的 ,被侵权人可以请求侵权人承担停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险等侵权责任.这一条应当适用无过错责任 ,理由如下 : (1)责任性质分析.在侵权责任方式中 ,赔偿损失是用减少侵权人财产的方法补偿被侵权人的损失 ,一般以侵权人有过错为要件.采用过错责任有对侵权人谴责之意 ,停止侵害、排除妨碍和消除危险这三种侵权责任是要求侵权人除去侵害和除去损害的现实危险 ,针对的是行为或者状态 ,没有对侵权人谴责之意 ,这三种侵权责任不以过错为要件是对被侵权人和侵权人的权益以及社会利益的平衡 ;反之 ,如果这三种责任方式以过错为要件 ,不利于保护民事权益 ,不利于制止侵权行为. (2)体系解释.因为停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险可以分别或者共同适用于多种类型的侵权责任 ,所以规定在第二章责任构成和责任方式中.本条行文也符合无过错责任条款表述的惯例 ,如<<侵权责任法>>第 69条规定 ,从事高度危险作业造成他人损害的 ,应当承担侵权责任 (这条规定与<<民法通则>>第 123条规定的行文模式相同 规定的停止侵害、排除妨碍、),本条与第 69条的行文模式一样.据此可以将本条理解为特别规定 ,适用无过错责任.从民法整体上看 ,如果认为<<物权法>>规定的排除妨害、消除危险不以过错为前提 ,<<侵权责任法>>消除危险一般适用过错责任 ,就造成不应有的竞合 ,从而造成民法体系的不协调. (3)比较法解释.停止侵害、排除妨碍、包括要求对方一开始就不要发动某种侵害行为.民法典物权法编,后来学理和审判实践已经将其扩展到侵权行为法上,适用于<<德国民法典>>消除危险适用于对人格权、物权、知识产权等绝对权的侵害 ,这些责任方式与德国民法上的除去侵害和不作为之诉的内涵基本相同.不作为之诉不仅包括要求对方停止某种已经开始的侵害行为 ,还包括对方一开始就不发动某种侵害行为.[30]德国民法的除去侵害请求权和不作为请求权规定在第 82条至第 826条规定的对人格权、信用等的侵害 ,不以过错为前提.荷兰最高法院和意大利最高法院也有提起停止侵害不以被告有过错为前提的判例[31].我国<<侵权责任法>>规定的停止侵害、排除妨碍和消除危险三种请求权与德国民法的除去侵害和不作为两种请求权的内涵基本相同.如果将停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险理解为一般适用过错责任 ,在理论上和实践上都是倒退.

<<侵权责任法>>对返还财产的归责原则没有作特别规定 ,似应理解为一般适用过错责任.如果这样理解等于将返还财产作为侵权行为之债法上的损害赔偿 (德国式侵权行为之债法将返还原物和赔偿损失都归入损害赔偿 ,适用同一归责原则 ),<<侵权责任法>>将返还财产和赔偿损失分别规定为两项侵权责任方式 ,应当适用不同的归责原则.返还财产是要求侵权人将财产返还给被侵权人 ,没有理由以过错为要件 ,对此用目的解释或者体系解释均可说明.审判实践中被侵权人只请求返还财产的 ,适用无过错责任 ;被侵权人只请求赔偿损失的 ,除法律另有规定外 ,适用过错责任 ;被侵权人既请求返还财产 ,又请求赔偿损失的 ,前者适用无过错责任 ,后者除法律另有规定外 ,适用过错责任.

从价值取向上看 ,<<侵权责任法>>保护的不仅仅是绝对权 ,如果运用侵权责任法的停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险、返还财产等损害赔偿以外的责任方式来保护物权时,以过错作为侵权责任的一般原则 ,很难运用价值判断的讨论方法论证其正当性.[32] 这意味着对绝对权和绝对权以外的民事权益的保护采取不同的价值取向 ,就会造成不同当事人的权益失衡.

从被侵权人选择请求权来说 ,如果确认根据<<物权 ,排除妨害、消除危险和返还原物不以过错为前提 ,而<<侵权责任法>>规定的停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险和返还财产一般适用过错责任 ,物权 人就不会选择后者 ,那么后者就成为无用的条文 ;有些物权人由于不懂前后二者的区别 ,可能误选后者 ,后者就成为不利或者不能充分保护这些人权益的条文.

根据上述理由 ,并且考虑到<<侵权责任法>>对侵权责任的构成有具体规定 ,而<<物权法>>对物权保护方法的构成没有具体规定 ,本文认为 ,应当将<<物权法>>规定的物权保护方法与<<侵权责任法>>规定的侵权责任方式有重合的条款解释为引致规范 ,具体适用<<侵权责任法>>的规定.

Links to Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com

四、侵权责任法与物权法的关系

(一)变革物权请求权 ,建构新请求权体系

<<物权法>>第三章规定了多种物权请求权 ,<<侵权责任法>>规定了八种侵权请求权,有学者认为 ,物权请求权与侵权请求权是并存的.笔者认为这种理解很难说是理想的方案 ,具体分析如下 :首先 ,如果物权请求权与侵权请求权能并存 ,在物权请求权与侵权请求权的归责原则的适用上会发生诸多问题 ,上文对此已作阐明 ,不再赘述.

其次 ,由于不同类型的责任方式所保护的民事权利的类型不同 ,适用的归责原则不同 规定的停止侵害、;同理 ,适用的诉讼时效的类型和期限也应不同.需要重点研究的是<<侵权责任法>>消除危险和返还原物适用诉讼时效的问题.排除妨碍和消除危险与<<物权法>>就没有必要规定诉讼时效.理由之二是,如果作为物权保护方法的排除妨害和消除危险不适用诉讼时效,而作为侵权责任方式的停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险和返还财产与<<物权法>>规定的排除妨害、

<<侵权责任法>>规定的停止侵害、规定的排除妨害和消除危险 ,是否应当分别适用不同的诉讼时效 ?回答是否定的.理由之一是 ,因为较好的方案是将<<物权法>>规定的保护方法解释为引致规范 ,具体规定是在<<侵权责任法>>中 ,作为物权保护方法的排除妨害和消除危险排除妨碍和消除危险适用诉讼时效 ,理由不足.这个问题可以参考德国新时效法的规定.德国新时效法规定不作为请求权和排除妨碍请求权适用普通诉讼时效 (3年 ).官方的解释是 :"在实践中 ,没有将 30年时效期间适用于不作为请求权的必要 ,因为每次出现违反行为都将重新出现该不作为请求权.同样 ,也没有必要将此种 30年的时效适用于源于绝对权的排除妨碍请求权 ,因为如果适用的话 ,将会造成区分此种排除妨碍请求权与侵法上排除妨碍请求权的困难 ,而侵权法上的排除妨碍请求权的时效期间为 3年.另外 ,依据新法第 199条的规定 ,不作为请求权和排除妨碍请求权的时效期间始于请求人获知存在请求权和违反行为 ,这样足以保护其免于突如其来的权利损失."[33] 参考德国新时效法 ,<<侵权责任法>>规定的停止侵害、排除妨碍和消除危险与<<物权法>>规定的排除妨害和消除危险 ,应当适用同一诉讼时效期限 ,或者二者均不适用诉讼时效.既然如此 ,作为引致规范的<<物权法>>上的排除妨害和消除危险就没有必要规定诉讼时效.

<<侵权责任法>>规定的返还财产和<<物权法>>规定的返还原物是否应当适用不同的诉讼时效 ?与上面讲的理由一样 ,返还原物应是引致规范 ,应规定在<<侵权责任法>>中.侵权责任法已经不属于债法的范畴 ,返还财产的性质不是损害赔偿之债 ,而是物权保护的一种方法 ,返还财产不适用诉讼时效或者规定返还财产适用长期诉讼时效 ,理论上没有障碍.现在的问题是 ,这个问题<<民法通则>>没有特别规定 ,最高人民法院的有关司法解释也没有涉及 ,<<侵权责任法>>也没有相关规定 ,对这个问题的处理应当由法律规定 ,在法律没有规定的情况下 ,可以通过立法解释或者司法解释解决.按照上述方法处理<<物权法>>和<<侵权责任法>>的相关规定 ,既是对侵权行为之债法的变革 ,也是对德国民法上请求权体系的变革.变革后的请求权有债权债务关系上的请求权、婚姻家庭关系上的请求权、继承关系上的请求权和侵权责任关系上的请求权.其中基于停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险适用于对物权、人身权和知识产权等绝对权的侵害.这样就没有必要在知识产权法中增设知识产权请求权的规定.如果将来民法典中增设人格权编 ,也没有必要规定侵害人格权的请求权.

<<德国民法典>>总则编消灭时效一章的第 194条第 1款规定 ,向他人请求作为或者不作为的权利 (请求权 ),受消灭时效的限制.将来我国民法典在民法典总则中写一条关于权利、义务和责任的概括性规定 :民事主体依法享有民事权利 ,负有民事义务 ;不履行民事义务 ,侵害他人民事权益的 ,应当承担民事责任.在此条之后写一条关于请求权的概括性规定 :民事权利人有请求义务人履行民事义务或者请求责任人承担民事责任的权利 (请求权 ).这样就从总则到分则形成了我国民法上新的请求权体系.

(二)新请求权体系的特点

1、新请求权体系的内涵丰富 ,请求权在民法中的地位更加显著

<<德国民法典>>第 12条规定了侵害姓名权的请求权.新请求权体系中的请求权涵括了全部人格权和知识产权等多种民事权益受到侵害时的请求权 ,比德国民法规定的请求权的内涵丰富.

<<德国民法典>>第 194条第 1款是关于请求权的一般规定.有学者对这款规定解释说 ,第 194条第 1款以很不显眼的方式给出了一个对整部德国民法典来说十分重要的法定定义 ————请求权是向他人请求作为或不作为的权利.[34] 新请求权体系的一般规定可以规定在总则编的显著位置 ,从而使请求权在民法中的地位更加显著.

2、物权与债权的区分更加清晰

将<<物权法>>规定的返还原物、排除妨害、消除危险等作为引致规范,既借鉴了德国请求权体系的所长,又避免了其短,不仅没有混淆物权与债权的区分,而且使物权与债权的区分更加清晰.以下与德国的物权请求权作比较分析.

<<德国民法典>>将债务关系与物权分为相互独立的两编 ,具有科学性.但是根据民法典规定和审判实务的发展 ,债权请求权与物权请求权有交叉或者重合之处 ,这些交叉或者重合虽然有其合理性 ,但有其不合理性,举例如下:

其一 ,物权与债权在事实上的交叉.物权编的所有物返还请求权的具体方式是"返还原物 ",侵占他人的物 ,构成侵权行为的 ,在原物存在的情况下 ,"返还原物 "成为损害赔偿的一种方法.同样都是返还原物 ,前者称返还原物请求权 ,后者称损害赔偿请求权 ,二者的实际效果并无差异.这样规定的合理性在于 ,在构成侵权时 ,如果返还原物和赔偿损失同时存在 ,将返还原物和与赔偿损失都作为损害赔偿之债处理 ,可以适用同一归责原则.但是 ,将同一个事实变成两个概念 ,形成物权与债权在事实上的交叉.

其二 ,物权请求权与债权请求权的交叉.<<德国民法典>>规定了所有物返还请求权 ,同时将与所有物返还请求权相联系的物的使用收益、物的消灭毁损和对物支出费用的请求权 ,作为所有物返还请求权的从请求权处理.这种物权请求权的从请求权不是物权而是债权 ,因为与返还原物有从属关系 ,但是与一般债权也不同 ,即所有物返还请求权的从请求权不能单独处分 ,列入物权编 ,有其道理.但是 ,从民法典整体上看 ,这种安排实际上形成了物权与债权的交叉 ,而且这种交叉的理由不充分.物的使用收益、物的消灭毁损、对物支出费用"对此三个问题 ,本得适用民法一般原则 ,即关于物的使用收益 ,依不当得利 ;关于物的灭失毁损 ,依侵权行为 ;关于对物支出费用 ,依无因管理或不当得利."[35]将本来属于债权性质的问题规定为物权请求权的从请求权 ,模糊了物权与债权的界限.另外 ,本来属于债权的物的使用收益、物的消灭毁损、对物支出费用的请求权因从属于物权请求权 ,适用物权请求权的有关诉讼时效的规定 ,而不适用债权请求权的有关诉讼时效的规定 ,造成价值取向的矛盾.再说 ,物权请求权的从请求权规定繁琐难懂 ,即使在德国"能够理解这些问题的 ,也常常仅是那些十分精通的人士."[36]

其三 ,除去侵害请求权和不作为之诉请求权的重合.<<德国民法典>>物权编第 1004条规定了除去 侵害请求权和不作为请求权 ,后来在侵权案件中也适用 ,这是侵权行为理论发展和审判实践经验总结的成果 ,在这方面发生了侵权行为请求权与物权请求权的重合 ,这种重合无疑具有进步性.但是 ,这种进步并没有反映在德国新债务法中 ,德国民法典也未作相应的修改 ,造成了物权编规定的除去侵害请求权和不作为请求权与侵权行为法上的除去侵害请求权和不作为之诉请求权的重合.新请求权体系的内涵之一是 ,将德国民法上的物权请求权转换为侵权请求权 ,这样就不存在上述交叉与重合问题 ,从而使物权与债权的区分更加清晰.

另外 ,建构新请求权体系 ,还可以避免物权请求权理论上的争论.

<<德国民法典>>的请求权体系是根据温德沙伊德的请求权理论建立的.温德沙伊德认为对物权是由无限多的请求权构成的 ,对物权人有针对一切人的请求权 ,物权请求权针对的是某种消极的东西 ,是一项不作为.温德沙伊德还认为 ,物权请求权也可以要求他人进行作为 ,这主要是对物权受到侵害的情形 ;由于这种侵害 ,其就转换成了要求消除侵害的请求权.<<德国民法典>>接受了温德沙伊德提出的物权请求权这一术语和其含义. [37]<<德国民法典>>颁布多年之后 ,"支配权 "这一术语才被提出 ,再往后 ,支配权作为一种独立的权利类型被学者普遍接受. [38] 物权具有直接支配性 ,在通常情况下 ,物权表现为支配权 ,当物权受到侵害时才产生请求权.随着民法理论的发展特别是支配权概念的确立 ,温德沙伊德的物权请求权的第一种含义已被否定 ,剩下的仅是第二种含义 ,即物权受到侵害时产生的请求权.<<德国民法典>>颁布以后 ,德国学者对于请求权理论有发展 ,有争论 ,后者显得更为突出.该问题长期以来众说纷纭 ,莫衷一是.[39] 新请求权体系将物权请求权转换为侵权请求权,可以避免许多关于物权请求权的争论.

五、侵权责任法与民法通则、债权行为之债法的关系

<<民法通则>>开创了民事权利-民事义务 -民事责任立法模式 ,<<侵权责任法>>是民事责任体系的组成部分.民事权利、民事义务和民事责任是民事法律关系的基本要素 ,民事权利、民事义务和民事责任是民事法律关系体系的重要组成部分.拉伦茨说 :"私法的第一个基本概念是作为'权利主体 '的人 ,即权利的所有者和义务的承担者 ,第二个基本概念就是法律关系. ..<<德国民法典>>只谈到权利和义务 ,对法律关系则疏忽了. "[40]

将来我国民法典应当以民事权利为本位 ,以民事法律关系为核心.民法典总则编应当对民事权利、民事义务和民事责任作一般规定 (可参考的是俄罗斯民法典第二章"民事权利和民事义务的产生 ,民事权利的实现和保护 " ).从整体看 ,民法总则就是关于民事法律关系的总规定.分则各编是关于各种民事法律关系的具体规定 ,包括物权、债权、人格权、亲属权、继承权等.违反债的责任在债编规定 ,侵害各种绝对权的责任在侵权责任编规定 ,形成总则与分则相结合的民事责任体系 ,与此相应 ,形成民法上的新请求权体系.

<<侵权责任法>>第 1条规定中的 "侵权行为"与侵权行之债法上的侵权行为有不同的内涵.侵权行为之债法上的侵权行为概念的权威性表述是 :"侵权行为 ,指不法侵害他人的权益 ,依法律规定 ,应对所生损害负赔偿责任的行为. "[41] 根据<<侵权责任法>>第 2条的规定 ,侵权行为概念可概括为 :侵权行为是指侵害民事权益 ,依法应当承担侵权责任行为.两个不同的侵权行为概念反映了侵权责任法与侵权行为之债法的区别.侵权责任法与侵权行为之债法的主要区别如下 : (1)性质不同.侵权行为法是债法的组成不分 ,侵权责任法不属于债法的范畴 ,是独立的法律 ,将来是民法典独立的一编. (2)承担侵权责任的方式不同.侵权行为之债法的责任方式是损害赔偿.侵权责任法规定了八种主要的责任方式 ,各有其特定的内涵 ,不同于损害赔偿.(3)体系不同.侵权行为之债法在民法典中作为债的组成部分 ,内容简要.侵权责任法作为独立的法律 ,分为一般规定和侵权责任类型的规定 ,内容较为充实. (4)理论基础不同.侵权行为之债法的理论基础是债务与责任结合说 ,侵权责任法的理论基础是债务与责任区分说. (5)法律名称不同.名与实相关联 ,不同的实需要用不同的名反映 ;不同的名反映不同的实.侵权责任法与侵权行为法的名称不同 ,反映了二者实在的差异.前面讲的侵权责任法与侵权行为之债法的四项区别 ,是采用侵权责任法而不采用侵权行为之债法的主要理由.

另外 ,侵权行为法重在侵权人的行为和过错 ,实际上在一些情况下承担侵权责任的不是侵权行为人 ,而是应当承担侵权责任的其他人 (雇主、监护人等 ),理论上称为 "对他人侵权的责任 ".在另一些情况下是因为饲养的动物、建筑物或者物件造成的侵害,对此在学理上称"准侵权行为 ".随着工业和高科技的发展 ,社会风险增多 ,为保护民事权益 ,危险责任随之增多 ,并出现了过错推定、无过错责任以及过错客观化的情况 ,出现了违反安全保障义务等新的侵权类型.为了充分保护民事权益 ,有必要采取商业保险和社会救助基金等方式分散风险 ,分摊赔偿责任.在这种情况下 ,发生了侵权行为人与承担责任的主体分离的情况 ,因此用侵权责任法比用侵权行为法的更为合适.

六、结论

我国的民事立法不是完美无缺,无懈可击,关键在于现有的民事立法有了明显的"中国元素"."具有明显'中国元素'的民法制度宣告了中国的民事立法已经摆脱唯某一个其他国家或地区的民事法律是尚的阶段,正式由'照着讲'到了'接着讲'的阶段.⋯⋯它意味着中国民法学界在'照着讲'的同时,将开启'接着讲'的时代! "[42]债务与责任结合的立法模式是世界立法史上一定时期一定范围的现象,不具有普遍性.权利- 义务- 责任立法模式是立法和法学理论发展的产物,我国民法采取这种模式制定侵权责任法有实践和理论根据.侵权责任法是对侵权行为之债法的借鉴与变革,是整个民法体系的变革的组成部分.协调好侵权责任法与民法其他部分的关系,既有理论问题,也有现实问题,有待深入研究.





Notes:
[1]参见<<法国民法典>>(上册 ),罗玉珍译 ,法律出版社 2005年版 ,第 458页.

[2]参见王泽鉴 :<<民法学说与判例研究>>(4) ,中国政法大学出版社 1998年版 ,第 123 -124页 ;林诚二 :<<民法债编总论 ————体系化解说>>,中国人民大学出版社 2003年版 ,第 221页 ;黄茂荣 :<<债法总论>>(第一册 ),中国政法大学出版社 2003年版 ,第 62页 ;邱聪智 :<<新订民法债编通则>>(上 ),中国人民大学出版社 2003年版 ,第 8页.

[3][德]迪特尔 ·梅迪库斯 :<<德国债法总论>>,杜景林、卢谌译 ,法律出版社 2004年版 ,第 17页.

[4]参见前引[2],林诚二书 ,第 222页.

[5]参见 [德 ]迪特尔 ·施瓦布 :<<民法导论>>,郑冲译 ,法律出版社 2006年版 ,第 168 -169页 ;参见前引 [2],王泽鉴书 ,第 122 -123页.

[6]参见前引 [5],[德 ]迪特尔 ·施瓦布书 ,第 168 -169页.

[7]参见 [德 霍尔斯特 ·海因里希 ·雅科布斯 :<<十九世纪德国民法科学与立法>>,王娜译 ,法律出版社 2003年版 ,第 135 -136页.

[8]参见前引[3],[德 ]迪特尔 ·梅迪库斯书 ,第 34-35页.

[9][德 ]罗尔夫 ·克尼佩尔 :<<法律与历史>> ,朱岩译 ,法律出版社 2003年版
,第 153页.

[10]参见 [意]彼得罗 ·彭梵德 :<<罗马法教科书>> ,黄风译 ,中国政法大学出版社 1992年版 ,第 283页.

[11] 相传<<周礼>>为西周 (公元前 12世纪到公元前 8世纪 )初年的政治家、思想家周公所作
,实际成书于战国时代的可能性较大.参见<<北京大学法学百科全书>> (中国法律思想史、中国法制史、外国法律思想史、外国法制史卷 ),北京大学出版社 2000年版 ,第 1098页.

[12]参见蒲坚 :<<中国古代法制丛钞>> (第一卷 ),光明日报出版社 2001年版 ,第 74页.l
[13]参见蒲坚 :<<中国古代法制丛钞>> (第二卷 ),光明日报出版社 2001年版 ,第 405 -408页. [14]参见李志敏 :<<中国古代民法>> ,法律出版社 1988年版 ,第 129 -148页.

[14]参见李志敏 :<<中国古代民法>> ,法律出版社 1988年版 ,第 129 -148页.

[15]参见蒲坚 :<<中国古代法制丛钞>> (第三卷 ),光明日报出版社 2001年版 ,第 288页.

[16]所引<<汉穆拉比王法典>>的资料 ,参见<<外国法制史资料选编>> (上册 ),法学教材编辑部<<外国法制史>>编写组编 ,北京大学出版社 1982年版 ,第 17-50页.

[17]李宜琛 :<<日尔曼法概说>> ,商务印书馆 1943年版 ,第 72-75页.

[18]参见 [苏 ]: B ·7·格里巴诺夫、 C·M ·科尔涅耶夫主编 :<<苏联民法>> (上册 ),法律出版社 ,中国社会科学院法学研究所民法经1984年版 ,第 488 -495页
;[苏]B·T·斯米尔诺夫等著 <<苏联民法>> (上卷 ),中国人民大学出版社 1987年版 ,第 395 -396页.

[19] 其中较为典型的是 2002年<<最高人民法院关于审理著作权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释>>和 2003年<<最高人民法院关于审理专利侵权纠纷案件若干问题的规定>>一位法官说 :"最高法院 2002年的 31号司法解释算是给我们开了一条路 ".参见郑成思 :<<侵权责任、损害赔偿责任与知识产权保护>>,载<<环球法律评论>>, 2003年冬季号 ,第 466页.

[20]李肇伟 :<<法理学>>,台湾东亚照相制版厂 1979年版 ,第 306页.

[21]参见沈宗灵主编 :<<法理学>>,高等教育出版社 2000年版 ,第 400 -420页 ;张骐 :<<论当代中国法律责任的目的、功能与归责的基本则>>,载<<中外法学>>1999年第 6期 ;孙国华、张文显、付子堂、卓泽渊等分别主编的法理学和有关著作.

[22] <<民法通则>>第 134条 3款规定 ,人民法院审理民事案件 ,除适用上述规定外 ,还可以训诫、责令具结悔过、收缴进行非法活动的财物和非法所得 ,并可以依照法律规定处以罚款、拘留.这一款规定有当时的背景 ,笔者所讲的民事制裁与这一款规定的含义不同.μ
[23]参见魏振瀛 :<<制定侵权责任法的学理分析 ——侵权行为之债立法模式的借鉴与变革>>,载<<法学家>>2009年第 1期.

[24][德]卡尔 ·拉伦茨 :<<德国民法通论>>(上册 ),王晓华、邵建东、程建英、徐建国、谢怀栻译 ,法律出版社 2003年版 ,第 50-51页.

[25] 张文显 :<<法哲学范畴研究>>(修订版 ),中国政法大学出版社 2003年版 ,第 117页.

[26]参见郭明瑞 :<<侵权法若干问题思考>>,载<<中国法学>>2008年第4期.

[27] Lange / Hagen,Wandlungen desSchadensersatzrechts,Heidelberg1987,S165ff11转引自李承亮 :<<损害赔偿与民事责任>>,载<<中国法学会民法学研究会 2008年年会暨纪念改革开放 30年民法学学术研究论文集>>,第 346页.

[28][德 ]弗里德里希 ·卡尔 ·冯 ·萨维尼 :<<萨维尼论财产权>>,金可可译 ,载王洪亮等主编 :<<中徳私法研究>>(2006年第一卷 ),北京大学出版社 2006年版 ,第 208页、第 211页.

[29]前引 [28], [德]萨维尼文,第210 -211页.

[30]参见 [德 ]马克西米利安 ·福克斯 :<<侵权行为法>> ,齐晓琨译 ,法律出版社 2006年版 ,第 132页.

[31]参见前引 [30],[德 ]马克西米利安 ·福克斯书 ,第 132 -133页 ;[德 ]克雷斯蒂安 ·冯 ·巴尔 :<<欧洲比较侵权行为法>> (下卷 ),焦美华译 ,法律出版2001年版
,第 167 -168页.

[32]参见王轶 :<<民法原理与民法学方法>> ,法律出版社 2009年 11月版 ,第 191 -194页.

[33]朱岩编译 :<<德国新债法 ————条文及官方解释>>,法律出版社 2003年版 ,第 20页.

[34]陈卫佐译注 :<<德国民法典>>(第2版 ),法律出版社 2006年版 ,第 63页.

[35]王泽鉴 :<<民法物权>>(第二册 ),台湾兴丰印刷厂 1995年版 ,第 188页.

[36][德]鲍尔、施缔尔纳 :<<德国物权法>>(上册 ),张双根译 ,法律出版社 2004年版 ,第 196页.

[37]参见金可可 :<<论温德沙伊德的请求权概念>> ,载<<比较法研究>> 2005年第 3期.

[38]参见金可可 :<<论支配权概念>> ,载<<中国法学>> 2006年第 2期.

[39]参见苑书涛 :<<请求权基础理论研究>> (2005年西南政法大学博士论文 )第27-36页.

[40]前引 [24] ,[德 ]卡尔 ·拉伦茨书 ,第 255 -262页.

[41]参见王泽鉴 :<<侵权行为法>> (第一册 ),台湾菩菱设计印刷公司 1998年版 ,第 66页.

[42]前引[32],王轶书,"我们准备好了吗? (代序) ".

Links to Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com