Over the five years since the implementation of Book Four Personality Rights of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, it has vigorously promoted sound lawmaking, strict law enforcement, impartial administration of justice, and the observance of law by all, thereby advancing the rule of law in China. The implementation of Book Four Personality Rights has given effect to the people-centered human rights philosophy and has substantially strengthened human rights protection. It has provided a governance framework for Internet governance and the development of the digital economy, established legal guarantees for the healthy development of artificial intelligence, and set baseline rules for the advancement of biotechnology. Furthermore, it has facilitated the development of an independent knowledge system of civil law in China. Nevertheless, there remain several key and challenging issues in the implementation of Book Four Personality Rights. To fully realize its effectiveness and better protect human dignity and personal liberty, it is necessary to refine and improve relevant rules through the formulation of corresponding judicial interpretations based on a synthesis of judicial experience.

As a critical discourse, the policy of “two unswervinglys” is reiterated in the 20th CPC National Congress Report, which also prompts to protect the property rights of private enterprises and the equities of entrepreneurs. The legal expression of “two unswervinglys” is the equal protection principle regulated in the Civil Code. To implement “two unswervinglys”, it is necessary to establish the property rights system centered on the equal protection principle, and to provide market economy with the basic protection frame of property rights. To achieve equal protection, it is required to carry out the management mode of “Negative List”, to consolidate the protection of property rights of private enterprises from the aspects of market access, business security, market supervision and protection of rights and interests. It is also required to thoroughly apply the equal protection principle to all aspects of comprehensively promoting law-based governance, including further improving legislation, deepen administrative enforcement of law,and strengthen justice, etc., so as to carry out the task of protecting the legitimate property rights of private enterprises raised in the Report.

The promulgation of the Civil Code provides the basis and criterion for the construction of the knowledge system of China’s civil law science. Its independent knowledge system should reflect the characteristics of localization, reference, originality, timeliness, scientificity and practicality. The construction of the independent knowledge system should be based on the system of the Civil Code, and the system of property rights, contracts, personality rights, marriage and family, inheritance, and tort liability should be constructed respectively. The construction of independent knowledge system should be centered on civil rights and interests, with private law autonomy and humanistic care as its value. At the same time, the study of civil law should be geared to the era of high-tech and big data, the market economy and the actual needs of China, so as to build the knowledge system of civil law in China.

This article explores and assesses the significance of the adoption of a separate part (or, book (sic)) on personality rights in China's new Civil Code. We argue that there are profound socioeconomic meanings underlying the technical changes in the classic structure of the civil codes in civil law tradition. On one hand, the stand-alone part on personality rights is the fruit and embodiment of the rising rights consciousness of personality in Chinese civil society, which has been largely unexplored in existing China studies. On the other hand, the part provides a new legislative model to comprehensively tackle the pervasive technological challenges to the protection of personal spheres, which is entangled with the rising rights consciousness over personality in China. Yet, the robustness of the acknowledgment of personality rights in this special part in promoting the protection of such rights remains to be tested in future court judgments.

《民法典》第153条是我国民事立法和司法实践经验的总结和发展,从形式上看,该条规定的是一种原则和例外的关系,但其实质上旨在区分效力性强制性规定和非效力性强制性规定,并将其作为认定民事法律行为效力的标准.在司法实践中,准确识别效力性强制性规定,对于维护交易安全、鼓励交易、维护诚信原则等具有重要意义.从法律适用层面看,首先需要通过各种法律解释方法,并通过利益平衡等方式,准确识别相关规范的性质,同时,需要借助类型化的方式,对效力性强制性规范进行类型区分.此外,在适用《民法典》第153条规定时,还需要厘清违反效力性强制性规定与违背公序良俗之间的关系,不能简单地借助违背公序良俗规则将规章等规范性文件作为判断民事法律行为无效的标准.

This chapter fully discusses the reasons for the law of personality rights as a standalone part of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), arguing that this is not only necessary to effectively respond to technological progress and social development but also a requirement for the comprehensive protection of human dignity.

我国《民法典》虽然已经构建了完善的民事权益体系,并已在相关条款中就权益位阶作出了规定,但并没有全面确立清晰的权益位阶.在普遍存在的权益冲突中,不同权益的价值分量并非等同,在这一背景下,建立妥善的权益位阶理论,有助于防范化解冲突,有效贯彻立法者的价值判断,并辅助裁判者进行准确的利益衡量.通过对《民法典》民事权益体系的解释,可以对民事权益的位阶进行如下排序:物质性人格权、精神性人格权、身份权、人格利益、财产权利、财产利益.民事权益位阶在司法适用中并不是机械地排序取舍,而应结合个案场景妥当地进行利益衡量.民事权益位阶主要涉及高位阶权益的优先保护、低位阶权益的妥协容忍、民事责任的限制和排除、合同的解除以及对利益受损者的适当补偿等效果.

我国个人信息保护法第47条在民法典第1037条规定的基础上,对个人信息的删除权作出了细化规定.个人信息删除权在性质上属于个人信息的一项权能,且是人格权请求权的具体体现,该项权利的行使必须满足法律规定和约定的条件.删除权虽然可以适用于搜索引擎,但应当区分不同情形作出必要限制.个人信息保护法所规定的删除权虽然适用范围较为宽泛,但仍然不能等同于域外法中的被遗忘权.在信息主体通过行使删除权保护其个人信息时,既可通过请求和诉讼的方式直接行使该项权利,也可以在个人信息处理者拒绝删除时,依法主张侵权损害赔偿责任.

The separate law of personality rights in China's Civil Code indicates a major innovation in China's Civil Code system. In the law of personality rights, the human dignity-centred value is upheld, and a complete set of rules and system of personality rights are established. That shows the experience in and the development trend of personality rights protection in China. Provisions of personality rights give consideration to both the negative defence and active utilization of personality rights, and highlight the priority protection of the rights to life, body and health. To meet the needs for personality right protection in the era of the Internet and big data, the law of personality rights stipulates special protection methods of personality rights, such as the rights to claim, prohibition, correction and deletion of personality rights. It pays attention to the prevention of personality right infringement, and strengthens the protection of privacy and personal data. The law of personality rights also balances the relationship between the protection of personality rights and other values, and brings out the best of the dynamic system theory in imputation.

《个人信息保护法》采取了"概括+列举"的方式,首次对敏感个人信息的概念作出了规定,并明确规定了"敏感性"的核心特征,将未成年人的个人信息纳入敏感个人信息的范畴,从而区分了敏感个人信息与一般个人信息.敏感个人信息与私密信息隐私存在交叉重合关系,但两者存在一定的区别,在保护方式上应当区别对待.对敏感个人信息的判断主要应依据法定标准,但也有必要兼采"场景理论".敏感个人信息的处理应遵循"特定目的 +单独同意"规则.只有在符合这些条件的前提下,才能对敏感个人信息进行处理.

自罗马法以来,传统大陆法国家财产法秉持物债二分、物必有体以及物权排他性的理念,这一理论框架难以有效解释虚拟世界中的数据权益.数据中包含了复杂的权益类型,各种权益呈现出一种网状结构,尤其是数据权益中常常包含个人信息权益,其与个人信息具有不可分割性,难以通过以所有权为基础的权利分离理论来解释,否则会割裂数据与个人信息之间的关联性,弱化对信息权利人的保护.因而有必要借鉴"权利束"理论作为数据权益的一种分析框架,依据该视角观察,数据权益是信息之上产生的多项集合的"权利束",无法简单地将其看作某一类单一的权利.在信息主体的权利与数据权利主体产生冲突时,应当优先保护个人信息权益.数据的价值在于利用,只有利用才能产生价值,确认数据权益也要保障数据的有效利用.

《民法典》总则编第五章构建了完整的民事权益体系,并在该章最后一条(即第132条)规定了禁止滥用权利规则.该制度的正当性基础在于规范权利行使、协调权利冲突、实现利益平衡、维护诚信原则.滥用权利的构成要件应当结合《总则编解释》第3条与《民法典》的规定予以确定,其主要包括权利人必须行使自身的权利、权利人选择以致他人损害为主要目的的方式行使权利、权利人行使权利的行为侵害了他人合法权益;同时应当以动态系统论和民事权益位阶作为认定滥用权利的补充方式.在滥用权利造成他人损害、符合侵权责任的构成要件时,应依据《民法典》侵权责任编的规定认定行为人的责任.构成滥用权利的,不发生权利人期待的相应的法律效力;如造成他人损害,还可能产生侵权责任,并可能导致失权的效果.

随着《民法典》的颁布,我国立法由单行法时代进入法典化时代.为准确理解和实施好《民法典》,必须从单行法思维向法典化思维转化,具体包括从多中心思维转向基础性法律思维,从碎片化思维转向体系性思维,从分散思维转向统一思维,从并立思维转向融贯思维.法典化思维需要树立以《民法典》作为民商事法律部门中基础性法律的理念,准确把握《民法典》各项制度的价值取向和规范意旨.从体系化的视角观察《民法典》,还需要协调好《民法典》内部的关系以及《民法典》与单行法之间的关系,并将《民法典》的价值体系融贯于各项民事法律制度之中.

法律的生命在于实施,民法典实施在社会治理中的重要作用极为重要.专家们认为,应当以民法典为分析框架,来构建民法理论体系和话语体系,民法典对于自媒体、电子商务和房地产市场的有效治理发挥着重要的作用,也为未来环境法典的编纂和知识产权基本法的制定提供了制度基础.在价值引领上,民法典的诚实信用原则能够在案件裁判和民法教学中落实诚信价值观,民法典的平等、自由原则也为商法的发展提供了更广阔的制度空间.在制度供给上,民法典有关担保制度的新规为良好营商环境的打造提供了支撑,同时农村宅基地和承包地"三权分置"改革也在实践中推进,个人信息保护法将民法典对个人信息的保护进一步细化落实.

In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), robots have profoundly impacted our life and work, and have challenged our civil legal system. In the course of AI development, robots need to be designed to protect our personal privacy, data privacy, intellectual property rights, and tort liability identification and determination. In addition, China needs an updated Civil Code in line with the growth of AI. All measures should aim to address AI challenges and also to provide the needed institutional space for the development of AI and other emerging technologies.

Human rights constitute an integrated concept.The protection of basic civil rights is part of the protection of human rights, and focuses on the connections among various human rights.The state thus has both passive defensive obligations and positive safeguarding obligations according to the constitutional law.The protection of basic civil rights holds that human rights are for all people, so it is necessary for all people to equally, widely, and sufficiently share their rights.The “People’s Republic China Civil Code” clarifies the universality of the subjects of civil rights, promotes the formal and substantive equality in the protection of civil rights, and strengthens the safeguard of civil law for personal, property, and personalistic rights.Based on the developmental nature of human rights, it is necessary to continuously improve the specific protective rules for basic civil rights with the development of modern technology and market economy, and to adhere to the mechanism of pluralistic and comprehensive governance in general.

有关法学科学性的争论由来已久,对法学是否具有科学性的质疑首先涉及对科学概念的界定,以及作为法学研究对象的法律的可变性、法律判断的主观性等.通过考察法学的发展可见,不能以自然科学的标准认定法学的科学性,也不能以法学的本土性否定其科学性.法学之所以具有科学性,是因为其具有一以贯之的基础价值,具有实践性,并且已经形成了有逻辑的知识结构体系和独立的研究方法.增进法学的科学性需要构建法学的理论体系和话语体系,加强理论创新,扎根法治实践促进法学发展,并广泛吸收和借鉴古今中外的理论成果.法学的未来发展需要面向互联网、高科技和大数据,面向现代市场经济,面向中国社会的实践需要.

民法典编纂中大量使用了参照适用这一立法技术,实现了简化条文、规范存储、增进体系化和查缺补漏的功能.在民法典贯彻实施中必须准确适用参照适用规范,以实现上述功能.参照适用规范与直接适用规范存在区别,二者在是否需要找法、是否需要辨别相似性、是否可以排除部分规范适用以及裁判者自由裁量权限等方面存在显著不同.参照适用也不同于类推,裁判者在能够通过参照适用条款寻找到裁判规范时,不宜适用类推进行漏洞填补.在实践中,应当区分概括参照与具体参照条款,依据二者的特点分别确定适用的规则和步骤.在参照适用条款的适用中,应当从立法目的 出发,判断调整对象的相似性,并最终依据法律体系进行法律适用结果的检验.

《民法典》第215条确立了区分原则,即要求区分合同的效力与物权变动的效力,并明确登记只是不动产物权变动的要件.区分原则是我国物权法的基本原则,也是物权变动的基本指导原则.由于我国的物权变动主要采用了债权形式主义模式,因此,必须在债权形式主义模式下来解释与适用区分原则.区分原则是我国本土法律经验的总结,而并非借鉴域外法的物权理论的结果,该原则并未承认独立于债权合意之外的物权合意,而是认定物权变动仅以债权合同为基础,并确认了债权合同效力对物权变动的影响.在贯彻实施《民法典》时,不应当按照物权行为理论来理解区分原则,而必须在债权形式主义模式下准确阐释与适用区分原则.