【摘要】：離婚損害賠償制度作為2001年《婚姻法》修正案中的亮點(diǎn),在眾多期待的目光中出臺,然而該制度自實(shí)施以來,其司法適用狀況一直差強(qiáng)人意,理論界與實(shí)務(wù)界對這一制度存廢的爭論也一直在持續(xù)之中。此制度設(shè)立目的是懲罰導(dǎo)致婚姻破裂的過錯方,對無過錯方給予經(jīng)濟(jì)賠償,然而從立法規(guī)定上看,《婚姻法》第四十六條的規(guī)定范圍過于狹窄,在相關(guān)的司法解釋中也沒有在證據(jù)上、程序上、責(zé)任主體等方面進(jìn)行很好的完善,在實(shí)踐中成為當(dāng)事人行使權(quán)利的障礙,法官在審判中也出現(xiàn)了同案不同判、改變審判思路的現(xiàn)象。因此,此制度司法適用狀況的不盡如人意,立法價值難以實(shí)現(xiàn),成為婚姻家庭中侵權(quán)糾紛的障礙,在探索民法典之婚姻家庭編之中,是否繼續(xù)保留這一制度,如何才能更好實(shí)現(xiàn)對夫妻之間民事權(quán)益的維護(hù),也成為很多學(xué)者專家和法律編纂者所關(guān)心的問題。本文將在此基礎(chǔ)上展開自己觀點(diǎn)意見的陳述。本文分為三部分,第一部分主要是對我國離婚損害賠償?shù)母攀?從我國離婚損害賠償?shù)臍v史發(fā)展沿革入手,到現(xiàn)在的法律規(guī)定,進(jìn)行概念界定,性質(zhì)定位,從而對其進(jìn)行全面的認(rèn)識,然后梳理理論和實(shí)務(wù)界對其存廢的討論,總結(jié)爭議焦點(diǎn)為文章下一步的討論奠基。第二部分主要在學(xué)者們對離婚損害賠償存廢爭議的歸納梳理的基礎(chǔ)上,提出自己的觀點(diǎn)和建議。筆者認(rèn)為離婚損害賠償就其利益衡量而言,是弊大于利的,其立法價值在現(xiàn)實(shí)中很難實(shí)現(xiàn),在民法典的制定中應(yīng)予廢除:首先從學(xué)理上分析,其請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)不明,它屬于第一性權(quán)利還是第二性權(quán)利值得斟酌;而且其規(guī)定和相關(guān)法律的不夠協(xié)調(diào),也使司法中造成了法官囿于法律規(guī)定,難免會出現(xiàn)同案不同判,而使夫妻婚內(nèi)侵權(quán)難以保障;另外此制度背離世界婚姻法發(fā)展方向,有違無過錯主義的婚姻立法趨勢。其次從實(shí)踐上分析,離婚損害賠償取證難、范圍窄,并且將損害賠償與離婚掛鉤的規(guī)定使其司法成本高,社會效益低,在離婚案件中使用少,支持率低,不符合效率原則,而且法官在審判中處理此類訴訟案件時改用的是侵權(quán)的審判思路。第三部分則是對廢除我國離婚損害賠償之后,如何探索更好的保障夫妻之間權(quán)益的制度措施提出自己的意見:筆者認(rèn)為在統(tǒng)一的民法典語境下,夫妻之間具有平等的人身財產(chǎn)關(guān)系,因此應(yīng)當(dāng)明確規(guī)定夫妻之間的侵權(quán)損害賠償,此賠償與離婚無必然聯(lián)系。為此,需首先明確規(guī)定配偶權(quán)來對夫妻之間的人身和財產(chǎn)權(quán)利進(jìn)行全面系統(tǒng)的規(guī)定,并通過對夫妻財產(chǎn)制的進(jìn)一步完善來作為夫妻侵權(quán)損害賠償?shù)幕A(chǔ);另外由于夫妻之間的關(guān)系不同于一般的當(dāng)事人之間的關(guān)系,訴訟中針對夫妻間的舉證問題、承擔(dān)方式等方面也應(yīng)作出不同于一般的民事侵權(quán)規(guī)定,從而更好解決夫妻之間的矛盾,促進(jìn)家庭社會的和諧,維護(hù)離婚夫妻間的利益。
[Abstract]:As a bright spot in the amendment of the Marriage Law in 2001, the system of compensation for divorce damages has been introduced in the eyes of many people. However, since the implementation of the system, its judicial application has been unsatisfactory. Theorists and practitioners have been arguing about the existence and abolition of this system. The purpose of this system is to punish the wrongdoer who caused the breakdown of the marriage, and to pay economic compensation to the no-fault party. However, from the legislative point of view, the scope of Article 46 of the Marriage Law is too narrow. In the relevant judicial interpretation, there is no good improvement on the evidence, procedure, responsibility subject and so on. In practice, it has become an obstacle for the parties to exercise their rights, and the judge has also found different judgments in the same case in the trial. The phenomenon of changing the thinking of the trial. Therefore, the judicial application of this system is not satisfactory, the value of legislation is difficult to achieve, become the obstacle of tort disputes in marriage and family, whether to continue to retain this system in the exploration of the civil code of marriage and family. How to better protect the civil rights and interests between husband and wife has also become the concern of many scholars and legal compilers. On this basis, this paper will develop a statement of my views. This article is divided into three parts, the first part is the summary of our country divorce damage compensation, from the historical development of our country divorce damages, to the current legal provisions, the definition of the concept, the nature of positioning, Therefore, the author makes a comprehensive understanding of it, then combs the theoretical and practical discussion of its existence and scrap, and concludes the focus of the controversy as the foundation for the next discussion of the article. In the second part, the author puts forward his own views and suggestions on the basis of summing up and combing the dispute of divorce damages. The author thinks that the damage compensation for divorce is more harmful than good in terms of its interests, its legislative value is difficult to realize in reality, and it should be abolished in the formulation of civil code: firstly, from the theoretical point of view, the basis of its claim is not clear. It belongs to the primary right or the second right is worth considering, and its stipulation and the related law is not coordinated, also causes the judge in the judicature to be limited by the law stipulation, will inevitably appear the cotrial different judgment, and causes the husband and wife to violate the rights within the marriage difficult to safeguard; In addition, this system deviates from the development direction of the world marriage law and violates the trend of non-fault marriage legislation. Secondly, from the practical analysis, it is difficult to obtain evidence of divorce damages, narrow scope, and the provisions of linking damages to divorce make its judicial costs high, social benefits low, use less in divorce cases, support low, not in line with the principle of efficiency. And the judge in the trial to deal with this kind of litigation cases instead of tort trial ideas. The third part is about how to explore how to better protect the rights and interests of husband and wife after the abolition of divorce damages in China: the author thinks that in the context of the unified civil code, Husband and wife have equal personal and property relations, so we should clearly stipulate the tort compensation between husband and wife, which is not necessarily related to divorce. Therefore, it is necessary to define the right of spouse to make a comprehensive and systematic provision on the right of person and property between husband and wife, and to further improve the system of husband and wife property as the basis of compensation for damages of husband and wife tort. In addition, because the relationship between husband and wife is different from that between the parties in general, the civil tort provisions should be made different from those of the general civil tort in respect of the proof and the way of bearing between the husband and wife in the lawsuit. In order to better solve the contradiction between husband and wife, promote the harmony of family and society, safeguard the interests of divorced couples.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：甘肅政法學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.9

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 饒?zhí)m蘭;離婚損害賠償若干問題探討[J];江西社會科學(xué);2001年09期

2 滕淑珍;離婚損害賠償?shù)睦碚撘罁?jù)及其構(gòu)成要件[J];政法論叢;2002年02期

3 何立榮;關(guān)于離婚損害賠償問題的幾點(diǎn)思考[J];廣西民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2003年02期

4 孫娟娟;離婚損害賠償問題的探討[J];黑龍江教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年01期

5 張曉明,劉華平;離婚損害賠償相關(guān)疑難問題探析[J];湖北省社會主義學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年06期

6 孫秀麗;離婚損害賠償若干問題探討[J];瓊州大學(xué)學(xué)報;2005年03期

7 王歌雅;離婚損害賠償?shù)膫惱韮?nèi)涵與制度完善[J];北方論叢;2005年05期

8 李洪祥;我國離婚損害賠償之規(guī)定存在的不足與完善[J];行政與法(吉林省行政學(xué)院學(xué)報);2005年09期

9 唐棣;離婚損害賠償價值的思考[J];邊疆經(jīng)濟(jì)與文化;2005年01期

10 朱紅霞;;離婚損害賠償若干問題探析[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(法學(xué)版);2008年06期

相關(guān)會議論文 前3條

1 賈盛榮;;論離婚損害賠償[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2006年第1輯）[C];2006年

2 塔娜;;論離婚損害賠償中的舉證難[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2005年

3 葛紅;;論我國的離婚損害賠償制度[A];第三屆中國律師論壇論文集（實(shí)務(wù)卷）[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 王明華;離婚損害賠償中若干問題的思考[N];人民法院報;2002年

2 吳曉芳;也談離婚損害賠償?shù)臉?gòu)成要件[N];人民法院報;2005年

3 邊曉斌;離婚損害賠償?shù)恼J(rèn)定與完善[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報;2006年

4 趙正輝邋姚秋娟 尤羲紅;離婚損害賠償為啥這么難[N];人民法院報;2008年

5 孫曉芳;離婚損害賠償數(shù)額的確定原則[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報;2008年

6 虹 口;離婚損害賠償訴請勝訴少[N];人民法院報;2003年

7 陸建忠 張 蕾;離婚損害賠償與婚內(nèi)損害賠償?shù)漠愅琜N];人民法院報;2003年

8 孫銘溪;離婚損害賠償：四方面問題待破解[N];檢察日報;2006年

9 毛晶晶;離婚損害賠償不該陷入尷尬境地[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報;2011年

10 師正平 李 棟;離婚損害賠償?shù)娜齻�問題[N];人民法院報;2003年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 周雍;離婚損害賠償問題研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

2 李倩;我國離婚損害賠償訴訟舉證難之案例分析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

3 盧玉瑜;我國夫妻離婚損害賠償?shù)姆蓡栴}研究[D];華南理工大學(xué);2016年

4 楊靜;離婚損害賠償制度比較研究[D];中央民族大學(xué);2015年

5 王麗萍;離婚損害賠償法律制度研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2015年

6 侯艷芳;離婚損害賠償制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

7 李欣桐;論我國離婚損害賠償制度的完善[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2016年

8 張雯成;離婚損害賠償制度的實(shí)證研究[D];江西財經(jīng)大學(xué);2016年

9 李芝秀;論我國離婚救濟(jì)制度的完善[D];湖南大學(xué);2016年

10 劉俊;論我國離婚損害賠償之廢除[D];甘肅政法學(xué)院;2017年

，

本文編號：2126531