论客观关联共同侵权行为的理论辨正与立法回应——兼论《民法典》第1168条的解释  

On the Theoretical Correction and Legislative Response of the Objectively Associated Joint Tortious Acts—Also on the Interpretation of Article 1168 of the Civil Code

作　　者：唐绍均[1] 李生银 TANG Shao-jun;LI Sheng-yin(Law School,Chongqing University,Chongqing 400045,China)

机构地区：[1]重庆大学法学院,重庆400045

出　　处：《湖南大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第4期128-136,共9页Journal of Hunan University(Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目:环境刑事责任的修复性易科制度研究(22BFX044);重庆市社科规划办哲学社会科学一般项目:习近平总书记“两山”论重庆实践研究(2020YBFX41);重庆市教育委员会哲学社会科学一般项目:公益诉讼专门立法研究(2022CDJSKPT18)。

摘　　要：我国有关共同侵权行为的民事立法一直未能明确客观关联共同侵权行为是否包含其中,导致相关学理解释形成了“肯定说”与“否定说”两种对立观点。由于“肯定说”在保护受害人权益上顾此失彼,在对共同侵权行为区分上泾渭不明;“否定说”在对客观关联共同侵权行为的认识上以偏概全,在对主观关联共同侵权行为的类型划分上逻辑断裂,因此客观关联共同侵权行为的理论证成亟须从分类逻辑的确立和样态种类的识别两个层面予以展开,其立法回应亟须通过细化解释《民法典》第1168条将客观关联共同侵权行为纳入其中,并将“无共同故意、共同实施侵权行为、同一损害”共同作为认定客观关联共同侵权行为的辨识要件予以实现。China’s civil legislation on joint torts has not clearly defined whether objectively related joint torts are included in it,and resulted in the formation of two opposing views,“affirmation theory”and“negation theory”,in relevant theoretical interpretations.Attending to one thing and losing sight of another in protecting the rights and interests of victims,“affirmation theory”is unable to distinguish between joint torts;the“negation theory”generalizes the understanding of objectively related joint torts,and exists a logical break in the classification of subjective joint torts.Therefore,the theoretical justification of objectively associated joint torts is in urgent need of starts from two levels:the establishment of classification logic and the identification of types of forms.Its legislative response urgently needs to include objectively associated joint torts through detailed interpretation of Article 1168 of the Civil code.It also urgently needs to set“no joint intention,joint torts,and the same damage”as the criteria for identifying objectively associated joint torts.

关 键 词：客观关联 共同侵权 证成进路 立法回应 

分 类 号：D923.7[政治法律—民商法学]