论文部分内容阅读
民事责任不同于民事义务,也非债的一般担保。侵权责任与债分离有其合理之处。但试图以《侵权责任法》对各种权利实行普遍性的救济,则会产生诸多困难。最明显的是与侵权行为的构成理论产生冲突。如何适用《侵权责任法》第15条的责任方式,可能的解释是:首先,衡诸行为,如果行为不违法,只能根据《物权法》适用返还原物、排除妨碍;其次,衡诸损害,只有既是违法行为又造成损害的才有适用第6条、第7条的余地。相反,违法行为没有造成损害的,则可以由第21条进行调整。
Civil liability is different from civil obligations, nor is it a general guarantee of debt. Tort liability and debt separation has its reasonable place. However, attempts to impose universal remedies on various rights under the Tort Liability Act create many difficulties. The most obvious one is the conflict with the constitutional theory of tort. How to apply the responsibility of Article 15 of Tort Liability Law may be interpreted as follows: Firstly, if the behavior is not illegal, the obliged property can only be returned according to the “Property Law” and the obstruction is eliminated; second, Only the only infringement of the law and the damage would be the application of Article 6 and Article 7. On the contrary, if there is no harm caused by the offense, then Article 21 can be adjusted.