中国民法典中人格权应否独立成编之争论

Abstract

China is working on the compilation of the Civil Code. During this process, the personality right has been codified as a separate part in the public draft of Civil Code, which is a breakthrough of the legislation mode of the continental law system, leading to great controversy in Chinese academic circle. The opinion which support the inclusion of personality right as a separate part based on the following reasons. First, the current civil laws, listing personality rights in the General Principles of Civil Law and relief personality infringement by Tort Law, cannot protect personality rights effectively. It is necessary to detail the contents and effects of personality rights. Secondly, the personality rights in current civil laws are not positive rights but defensive rights which are protected by Tort law when they were infringed. However, personality rights can be positively exercised like property rights and intellectual property rights. So there should be a separate part to contain more articles in the future Civil Code to regulate the exercise of personality rights. There are three different arguments against personality right as a separate part. First, personality rights should be protected as legal interests. Secondly, personality rights are constitutional rights and a separate part will limit the protection of personality rights. Third, personality rights are inherent, undefinable and defensive. As a conclusion of these arguments, personality rights should be stipulated in the part of General Principles and the part of Tort, instead of a separate part. The article draws the conclusion as follows. First, from the perspective of the characteristics, personality rights are innate rights which cannot be separated from right holder. Moreover, personality rights are hard to define and plenty of them cannot be exercised, except minority rights like portrait right and right of name which can be authorized to others. Secondly, the draft of Personality Rights Part, lacking effective articles, seems hollow and cluttered and should be deleted. Some useful articles could be stipulated in the part of General Principles and the part of Tort of the future Civil Code, or other public laws such as administrative laws.