about on personal right of the right to personality and tort liability constitutes（对个人的人格和侵权责任构成的权利）.docVIP

About On Personal Right of the Right to Personality and tort liability constitutes Keywords: personality right given, the general personal right, legal interests; composition of tort liability Synopsis: the meaning given personality rights set ‘mode with legalism modes have their pros and cons, except for freedom into account, both personal behavior and to impose a legal doctrine only rejection the parties based on an arbitrary creation of personality rights, does not limit judges creative justice, thus harmless openness in personality right, therefore the the Personal Right scheduled doctrine mode is more desirable under the in personality right set doctrine, even as to avoid the closed nature of the personality right, do not have to adopt a “general personality right” system design, set up the “right of personality and general provisions or protect other personality law beneficial conceptualization, is doing the the Personal Right openness Daren. taken in tort law tort liability constitutes the legal system of non-restrictive mode The generality of the provisions, implementation of the personality right given the doctrine, not to establish the right of personality even in personality right on general provisions, in listing the various items of concrete personality, do not set the protection of the interests of other personality “can not stop the civil judge based on the broad provisions of the Tort Liability personality interests should be protected in the social life clamor recognized as personality rights and to protect personality rights meaning given natural rights doctrine and personality rights sexuality fit, provided that such a qualitative deficiencies by The personality right given ‘running up the the personality right given to the rights of the property does not reduce the rights respected the sanctity of the personality. The right to set the mode, nothing less than the legal doctrine with Italy given ‘two forms of public law, the universality of