本文選題：懲罰性賠償 + 外部性�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：懲罰性賠償制度飽受爭(zhēng)議，至今對(duì)該制度的爭(zhēng)議尚未塵埃落定。爭(zhēng)議的核心問(wèn)題是懲罰性賠償制度如何恰當(dāng)?shù)倪m用，從而既能充分發(fā)揮懲罰性賠償制度的功能，又能避免懲罰性賠償制度的濫用。懲罰性賠償制度的功能是什么？實(shí)證地考察英美國(guó)家和大陸法系國(guó)家的懲罰性賠償制度和經(jīng)典案例，進(jìn)而歸納懲罰性賠償制度的功能是懲罰和遏制負(fù)外部性行為。在司法實(shí)踐中英美法系國(guó)家較為普遍地適用懲罰性賠償制度，經(jīng)歷了對(duì)侮辱行為的懲罰，濫用實(shí)力的懲罰，對(duì)危害行為的有效率的阻遏幾個(gè)發(fā)展階段。但是理論界和司法界對(duì)于該制度的性質(zhì)，適用民事審判程序是否違憲等問(wèn)題的爭(zhēng)論從未停止過(guò)。德國(guó)和法國(guó)對(duì)于懲罰性賠償制度拒絕接受，但在法律制度中又存在類(lèi)似于懲罰性賠償?shù)姆芍贫龋痉▽?shí)踐中法院也超出了傳統(tǒng)的民事責(zé)任范圍判決被告承擔(dān)類(lèi)似于懲罰性賠償金的賠償責(zé)任，在德國(guó)有痛苦賠償金、歧視賠償金、“預(yù)防性”賠償金、民事罰金等制度，在法國(guó)的合同法律制度和知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律制度中也均有適用。我國(guó)雖然有關(guān)于懲罰性賠償?shù)南嚓P(guān)規(guī)定但是懲罰性賠償制度的基礎(chǔ)理論尚待完善，而且司法實(shí)踐中存在法院針對(duì)同樣的事實(shí)做出矛盾判決的現(xiàn)象，因而懲罰性賠償制度的適用方法需要理論上的進(jìn)一步探討。適用懲罰性賠償制度，發(fā)揮其功能的理論基礎(chǔ)是什么？懲罰性賠償制度是以功利主義為哲理基礎(chǔ)，以解決社會(huì)公共危害為目的的法律制度。懲罰性賠償制度是國(guó)家矯正侵害行為的工具，是對(duì)社會(huì)整體利益的維護(hù)。懲罰性賠償?shù)膽土P和阻遏功能與民法和刑法的理念是相矛盾和沖突的。為了解決這種沖突，理論界提出解決的三種路徑：民事泛化論，懲罰私法化論，權(quán)利—過(guò)錯(cuò)—追索模式論，但是三種理論均未能有效的解決該矛盾。從懲罰性賠償制度產(chǎn)生的背景、社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)意義、運(yùn)行機(jī)制、保護(hù)法益來(lái)看，懲罰性賠償制度應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于經(jīng)濟(jì)法性質(zhì)。被告責(zé)任范圍也從對(duì)受害人的侵害承擔(dān)責(zé)任演變到對(duì)社會(huì)公眾的侵害承擔(dān)責(zé)任；但原告在獲得懲罰性賠償金時(shí)，也受到了不當(dāng)?shù)美馁|(zhì)疑。懲罰性賠償制度經(jīng)歷了從補(bǔ)償功能到懲罰與阻遏功能的演化，應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于經(jīng)濟(jì)法律制度。經(jīng)濟(jì)法責(zé)任本身具有社會(huì)性、復(fù)合型、不對(duì)等和不平衡的特征，經(jīng)濟(jì)法責(zé)任理論可以對(duì)懲罰性賠償制度做出合理的解釋。 懲罰性賠償制度如何發(fā)揮作用，為什么有其他法律制度不能比擬的優(yōu)勢(shì)？法律制度具有社會(huì)調(diào)控功能，現(xiàn)實(shí)社會(huì)中存在若干危害公共的行為，對(duì)于該部分危害行為市場(chǎng)無(wú)法有效解決，而必須通過(guò)國(guó)家干預(yù)，通過(guò)制度解決。懲罰性賠償制度相對(duì)于刑法、民法和行政法而言，更有效率。對(duì)于公共危害的解決，主要有兩種路徑：其一，通過(guò)刑法、行政法而產(chǎn)生遏制、威懾的“公共產(chǎn)品”；其二，將對(duì)侵害人提起訴訟而獲得賠償作為一種權(quán)利賦予受害人。哪種路徑更有效率？因?yàn)楣伯a(chǎn)品具有非競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性，由國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)提供的，公共產(chǎn)品能否有效提供受制于國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)的財(cái)力、人力等的制約，以及國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)能否盡職盡責(zé)。民法的優(yōu)勢(shì)在于信息獲取的便宜，程序簡(jiǎn)單，，追責(zé)較高的效率，如果涉及的侵害行為具有公共危害性，受害人眾多，因而如果通過(guò)民事訴訟程序解決，訴訟成本高昂，因而不具有效率。懲罰性賠償制度機(jī)制作用下，受害人受到高額懲罰性賠償金的激勵(lì)，會(huì)積極搜集相關(guān)信息，委托律師，盡快有效的對(duì)侵害人提起訴訟；而受害人之間甚至?xí)a(chǎn)生競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，從而進(jìn)一步提高懲罰性賠償制度的效率。因而具有公共危害性的侵害行為會(huì)被盡早發(fā)現(xiàn)，并由個(gè)人盡早的提起訴訟，進(jìn)而予以阻遏。受害人提起的訴訟可以產(chǎn)生正的外部性，即侵害人因?yàn)楸黄鹪V，而不得不對(duì)相關(guān)的侵害行為予以收斂，乃至停止從事某些侵害行為，因而社會(huì)公眾可以節(jié)省大量的預(yù)防成本。懲罰性賠償制度功能發(fā)揮都受到哪些因素的影響或者限制？鑒于法律具有分配資源、社會(huì)調(diào)控的功能，因此經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的方法來(lái)分析，更容易發(fā)現(xiàn)其內(nèi)在機(jī)制。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)語(yǔ)境下法律活動(dòng)以實(shí)現(xiàn)效率最大化為目標(biāo)。從經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度分析，懲罰性賠償發(fā)揮作用的主要影響因素有：法律介入的時(shí)機(jī)，預(yù)期懲罰的嚴(yán)厲性，行為信息的充分性，行為人對(duì)于自身行為危險(xiǎn)性的認(rèn)知程度以及制度執(zhí)行成本等。法律責(zé)任效用的發(fā)揮還受到歸責(zé)原則的影響。嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則下，法律適用的最佳狀態(tài)是賠償責(zé)任即懲罰性賠償金與民事賠償金之和等于損害，因?yàn)橘r償責(zé)任大于損害時(shí)，潛在的侵害人才有適當(dāng)?shù)膭?dòng)機(jī)采取預(yù)防措施，但是如果法律責(zé)任過(guò)大就會(huì)造成預(yù)防過(guò)度。在過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則下，行為人通常會(huì)傾向于采取防御措施達(dá)到“通常注意”的行為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但這通常會(huì)造成防御不足，因而懲罰性賠償可以加大責(zé)任，促使行為人進(jìn)一步采取防御措施而避免損害的發(fā)生。不同法律體系的“土壤”對(duì)于懲罰性賠償制度的適用也會(huì)產(chǎn)生影響，英美法系奉行司法能動(dòng)主義，以有效的解決案件實(shí)際問(wèn)題為目標(biāo)，因而懲罰性賠償制度適用的環(huán)境較為寬松，但有適用過(guò)度的傾向；大陸法系已有的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)姆芍贫润w系很難為工具性很強(qiáng)的懲罰性賠償制度找到一席之地，因而即便遇到“法律漏洞”時(shí)，大陸法系更傾向于通過(guò)對(duì)現(xiàn)有制度的擴(kuò)張解釋等方法解決，而不是創(chuàng)設(shè)缺乏部門(mén)法特征的制度。司法實(shí)踐中，因?yàn)閼土P性賠償制度具有懲罰的性質(zhì)，所以懲罰性賠償制度的適用應(yīng)當(dāng)有合理的限度，應(yīng)當(dāng)受到必要性的約束；而且懲罰性賠償制度應(yīng)當(dāng)符合公平與效率的法律基本的價(jià)值要求；懲罰性賠償金也應(yīng)當(dāng)具有合理性。 我國(guó)如何適用懲罰性賠償制度？首先，在我國(guó)法律制度不完善、社會(huì)管理過(guò)于倚重行政機(jī)關(guān)、道德失范的情況下，懲罰性賠償制度在我國(guó)的建立和運(yùn)行有著特殊的積極的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。其次，根據(jù)經(jīng)濟(jì)法理論懲罰性賠償適用的范圍應(yīng)當(dāng)限定在：市場(chǎng)失靈且具有社會(huì)危害性，而民法和刑法等其他法律制度不足以發(fā)揮功能的情形。再次，我國(guó)的懲罰性賠償制度應(yīng)當(dāng)進(jìn)一步完善，現(xiàn)有法律制度中以商品價(jià)格作為懲罰性賠償金計(jì)算基數(shù)的規(guī)定等無(wú)效率的規(guī)范應(yīng)當(dāng)修改；應(yīng)當(dāng)規(guī)定懲罰性賠償?shù)摹耙话銞l款”，以規(guī)范懲罰性賠償法律規(guī)范的適用范圍；應(yīng)當(dāng)借鑒分割式懲罰性賠償金制度，建立懲罰性賠償基金制度，使懲罰性賠償金既對(duì)公共危害行為予以遏制，也可以激勵(lì)受害人提起訴訟，還可以惠及社會(huì)公眾。第四，司法實(shí)踐中，懲罰性規(guī)范的適用方法主要涉及法律解釋和證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)兩方面的問(wèn)題。我國(guó)在懲罰性賠償法律規(guī)范適用的實(shí)踐中，存在法律規(guī)范解釋方法不同而導(dǎo)致判決結(jié)果不同的問(wèn)題，為了更為有效的適用懲罰性賠償制度，法律解釋方法應(yīng)當(dāng)予以統(tǒng)一，目的解釋具有優(yōu)先性。司法審判適用懲罰性賠償案件中，以法官的自由心證作為認(rèn)定事實(shí)的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)更符合我國(guó)國(guó)情，也更具有效率。
[Abstract]:The system of punitive damages has been disputed and the dispute on the system has not been settled yet. The core issue of the dispute is how to apply the punitive compensation system properly, which can not only give full play to the function of the punitive damages system, but also avoid the abuse of the punitive compensation system. What is the function of the penalty compensation system? The punitive compensation system and the classic cases of the countries of the British and American countries and the civil law countries are examined, and then the function of the punitive damages system is to punish and contain the negative externality. In the judicial practice, the punitive damages system is generally applied in the Anglo American legal system, and has experienced the punishment of insult and insult, the punishment of the abuse of strength, and the harm of the abuse of strength. The efficiency of the act has prevented several stages of development. However, the debate between the theorists and the judiciary on the nature of the system and whether the civil trial procedure is unconstitutional has never ceased. Germany and France refuse to accept the punitive damages system, but in the legal system, the judicial system is similar to punitive damages. In practice, the court also exceeded the traditional scope of civil liability to determine the defendant's liability for punitive damages. In Germany, there are painful indemnity, discrimination indemnity, "preventive" indemnity, and civil fines, which are also applicable in the legal system of contract and the legal system of intellectual property in France. On the relevant provisions of punitive damages, the basic theory of punitive damages system remains to be perfected, and there is a phenomenon that the court makes a contradictory judgment on the same facts in judicial practice, so the applicable method of the punitive damages system needs further discussion in theory. What is the foundation? Punitive damages system is a legal system based on utilitarianism as the philosophical basis to solve social public harm. The punitive damages system is a tool for the state to rectify the infringement and the maintenance of the whole social interests. The punishment and repressor function of punitive damages is inconsistent with the concept of civil law and criminal law. In order to solve this conflict, the theorists put forward three ways to solve this problem: the theory of civil generalization, the punishment of private law, the right to fault and the mode of recourse, but the three theories fail to solve the contradiction effectively. From the background of the punitive compensation system, the social reality, the operating mechanism, the protection of legal benefits, and the punitive compensation The system of compensation should belong to the nature of economic law. The scope of the defendant's liability also evolves from the responsibility of the victim to the social public, but the plaintiff has also been questioned by the unjust enrichment in obtaining punitive damages. The system of punitive damages has experienced the evolution from the compensatory function to the function of punishment and repression. When it belongs to the economic legal system, the responsibility of economic law itself has the characteristics of social, complex, unequal and unbalanced, and the theory of economic law liability can make a reasonable explanation of the punitive compensation system.
How does the punitive compensation system play a role, why do other legal systems have an incomparable advantage? The legal system has the function of social regulation and regulation, and there are some harmful public actions in the real society, which can not be effectively solved in this part of the harmful behavior market, but it must be solved through the system through the state intervention and the system of punitive damages. Relative to the criminal law, the civil law and the administrative law are more efficient. There are two main ways to solve the public harm: first, the criminal law, the administrative law and the deterrence of the "public products"; secondly, to bring a lawsuit to the infringer and obtain compensation as a right to the victim. Which way is more efficient? Because public The common products are non competitive, provided by the state organs, whether the public products can effectively provide the financial resources of the state organs, the constraints of human resources, and the full duty of the state organs. The advantages of the civil law lie in the cheap access to information, the simple procedure, the high efficiency, and the public harm if the infringements involved. There are many victims, so if they are solved by civil procedure, the cost of litigation is high, so it is not efficient. Under the mechanism of punitive damages, the victims are encouraged by the high punitive damages, and they will actively collect relevant information and entrust a lawyer to bring a lawsuit to the infringer as soon as possible; and even the victims will produce between them. Competition will further improve the efficiency of the punitive compensation system. Therefore, the violation of public harm will be discovered as soon as possible, and the individual will initiate a lawsuit as soon as possible, and then repression. The lawsuit brought by the victim can produce positive externality, that is, the victim has to be prosecuted and have to give the related infringements. Convergence, and even stop engaging in certain violations, the public can save a great deal of cost of prevention. What factors are affected or restricted by the function of punitive damages? In view of the function of the law to allocate resources and social regulation, the analysis of economic methods and the more easy discovery of its internal mechanism. In the context of context, legal activities are aimed at maximizing efficiency. From an economic perspective, the main influencing factors of punitive damages are: the timing of the legal intervention, the severity of the expected punishment, the adequacy of the behavior information, the cognitive degree of the perpetrator for the perpetrator of its own behavior, and the cost of the system. The exertion of utility is also influenced by the principle of imputation. Under the principle of strict liability, the best state of the application of the law is the liability of the punitive and civil compensation, which is equal to the damage, because when the liability is greater than the damage, the potential infringer has the appropriate motive to take preventive measures, but if the legal liability is too large it will be made. Under the principle of fault liability, the perpetrator usually tends to take defensive measures to meet the "usual attention" behavior standard, but this usually causes insufficient defense, so punitive damages can increase responsibility and encourage the perpetrator to take further defensive measures to avoid damage. "Soil in different legal systems" "The application of punitive damages will also have an impact. The Anglo American law system pursues judicial activism and aims to effectively solve the actual problems of the case. Therefore, the environment of the punitive damages system is more relaxed, but there is an excessive tendency to apply, and the strict legal system system in the continental law system is difficult to be very instrumental. The system of punitive damages finds a place, so even when it meets "legal loophole", the continental law system is more inclined to solve the system through the expansion of the existing system, rather than creating a system lacking the characteristics of the department law. In judicial practice, punitive compensation system has the nature of punishment, so punitive damages system The application of the punitive compensation system should be bound by the necessity, and the punitive compensation system should conform to the basic legal value requirements of fairness and efficiency, and the punitive damages should also be reasonable.
How to apply the system of punitive damages in our country? First, in the case of imperfect legal system in our country, in the case of social management too heavily on administrative organs and moral anomie, the system of punitive damages has a special positive and practical significance in the establishment and operation of our country. Secondly, the scope of the application of punitive damages according to the theory of economic law should be limited to The market failure and social harmfulness, and other legal systems such as civil law and criminal law are not sufficient to function. Thirdly, the punitive compensation system in our country should be further improved. In the existing legal system, the uneffective norms such as the price of commodity as the base of the punitive damages should be amended; it should be stipulated The "General Provisions" of punitive damages should be used to regulate the scope of application of the legal norms of punitive damages; the system of punitive damages should be used for reference, and the system of punitive damages should be established to make punitive damages not only to contain public harm, but also to encourage the victims to bring a lawsuit and to benefit the public. Four, in judicial practice, the applicable methods of punitive norms mainly involve two aspects of legal interpretation and standard of proof. In the practice of the applicable legal norms of punitive damages, there are different problems in the result of the judgment, which are different in the interpretation of the legal norms. In order to apply the system of punitive damages more effectively, the legal interpretation is made. The method should be unified, and the purpose is to explain the priority. In the case of punitive damages for judicial trial, the standard of proof of the judge's free heart is more consistent with the national conditions of our country and more efficient.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.29

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王本宏;論懲罰性賠償在合同領(lǐng)域的適用[J];安徽電力職工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

2 王利明;美國(guó)懲罰性賠償制度研究[J];比較法研究;2003年05期

3 車(chē)圣保;;效率理論述評(píng)[J];商業(yè)研究;2011年05期

4 文川;;教育服務(wù)領(lǐng)域引入懲罰性賠償制度的法理解析[J];長(zhǎng)春工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(高教研究版);2012年01期

5 張莉;;論侵權(quán)責(zé)任法的懲罰性賠償制度的適用[J];東南學(xué)術(shù);2011年01期

6 趙紅梅;;美、德新型懲罰性賠償對(duì)我國(guó)《消法》修訂的啟示[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年05期

7 楊靜毅;;懲罰性賠償金額的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析[J];東岳論叢;2011年03期

8 包俊洪,宮敬才;從經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值觀(guān)角度看西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中的效率范疇[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期

9 孔祥俊;論法律效果與社會(huì)效果的統(tǒng)一 一項(xiàng)基本司法政策的法理分析[J];法律適用;2005年01期

10 壽厲冰,陳乃新;略論懲罰性損害賠償?shù)慕?jīng)濟(jì)法屬性[J];法商研究;2002年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 張諾諾;懲罰性賠償制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

2 翟羽艷;私力救濟(jì)理論研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：1953689