目录

摘要001
Abstract004

第一章导论001
第一节选题的缘由001
第二节论域的界定003
第三节研究方法004
第四节文献资料006
第五节内容架构007
第六节主要创新点008
第二章关于名誉和名誉权的一般论述010
第一节名誉的概念010
第二节名誉的特征012
第三节名誉权的概念015
第四节名誉权的特征017
第五节名誉权的意义018
第三章死者名誉保护的中国法律规定和实际案例分析020
第一节相关法律规定之分析020
第二节实际案例之分析023
第四章比较法上的考察030
第一节大陆法系的理论与实践030
第二节英美法系的理论与实践035
第三节对两大法系考察的小结040
第五章学理上的争议042
第一节相关观点042
第二节争议的焦点046
第三节对各种观点的清理047
第六章对“近亲属权利保护说”之反驳050
第一节对“近亲属权利保护说”的基本反驳050
第二节对“近亲属权利保护说”关于死者名誉没有必要独立保护
的观点之反驳052
00死者人格利益的民法保护目录00第七章对当前“延伸保护说”的补正057
第一节赞成“延伸保护说”的基本理由057
第二节“延伸保护说”的缺陷064
第三节对“延伸保护说”的补正067
第八章死者名誉独立保护的正当性071
第一节死者名誉独立保护之正当性论证的意涵071
第二节死者名誉独立保护的伦理依据072
第三节死者名誉独立保护的社会依据075
第四节死者名誉独立保护的哲学依据076
第五节死者名誉独立保护的中国文化依据082
第九章死者名誉保护的制度设计087
第一节死者名誉法律保护的必要性087
第二节死者人格利益延伸保护的范围089
第三节死者人格利益的保护主体091
第四节死者人格利益保护的期限094
第五节侵害死者人格利益的赔偿责任097
第十章余论：未尽的话题099
第一节保护死者人格利益所反映的民法理念的转变099
第二节关怀死者的时代背景101
第三节民法中的死亡制度：未尽的话题104
附录一案例汇编106
附录二相关法律法规222
参考文献227

摘要

据人类学家及心理学家的研究显示：人类社会的每一个成员都会渴求名誉。那么作为社会中的一名成员在死后，他生前所获得的名誉还需要保护吗？如果需要，该如何进行保护呢？
1987年，天津发生“陈秀琴诉魏锡林、《今晚报》社侵害名誉权纠纷案”（以下称“荷花女名誉权案”），首开死者名誉保护之先河。该案的主要争议在于：荷花女早已死亡，保护死人名誉权有没有法律依据。该案自1987年6月起诉，直到1990年4月达成调解，历时3年才告终结。其中以最高人民法院1989年4月做出的司法意见才使案件的核心争议有一个较权威的结论。但是，此后关于死者名誉纠纷的案件也常常发生，笔者收集到的较有影响的案件就有十余起，最高人民法院也在其后发表的一系列司法解释中谈到了死者的名誉保护问题，而在这些解释中，其措辞和具体内涵都是不一样的。这也使得死者名誉保护问题在实践和理论上充满了争议。
关于死者名誉保护的相关理论争议，相当活跃，观点频生。细细数来，有几十种之多。这些理论虽然大多赞同对死者名誉应该给予保护，但是如何在民事法律体系和民法理论中给予一个协调一致、严谨周密的说法却争论不已、相持不下。因此，检索各种理论并考究民事法律和民法理论的发展趋势，提出关于死者名誉保护的更为圆通、严密和周全的理论便成为必要之事。
本书沿着从宏观到微观、“实践—理论—实践”的脉络论述了死者人格利益的保护问题。首先对名誉和名誉权进行了一般概说，指出名誉的社会性和中国名誉权的广义性。这主要是对名誉和名誉权的范围做一个大致的界定，从而为后面的研究提供前提性的概念。
接着是对死者名誉保护的中国法律规定和实际案例的分析。这主要是对死者名誉保护的中国当前法律制度进行实证性的考察，分析实际法律规定、实践发生之诉讼事件以及司法部门所做之判决，理出其中的主体诉求、法院回应以及社会反映，从而彰显死者名誉在当代中国民法中究竟应该如何定位。
从比较法的角度来看，死者名誉的保护问题在国外也是一个较新的课题。英美法系的法律实践和理论开始讨论死者名誉的保护问题只是20世纪80年代后期的事情；而大陆法系也只是在20世纪70年代才开始讨论死者名誉的保护问题。而且总体上说，面对这一较新议题，各法系的理论在自身法律体系下的说明也不尽一致。因此，相比较而言，我国在死者名誉保护的法律规定和学说讨论方面倒是与世界处于基本同步的状态。
00死者人格利益的民法保护摘要00当前我国关于死者名誉保护的问题，主要的代表性观点就有八种之多，其中争议的焦点主要集中于：对死者的人格利益该不该保护；保护的是死者的利益还是死者近亲属的利益，抑或两者都保护；死者的人格利益该不该独立保护，这三方面问题。而从民法基础理论出发，可以首先排除“死者权利保护说”、“人格利益继承说”、“人身遗存说”和“家庭利益说”。这样就只剩下“近亲属权利保护说”、“近亲属、社会利益关联说”、“死者法益保护说”和“延伸保护说”。从包含关系和理论的深入性等角度来看，“近亲属权利保护说”与“延伸保护说”是最终剩下的最具有竞争力的两种具有典型意义的代表观点。
“近亲属权利保护说”认为，通过保护死者近亲属的名誉权或者人格尊严来间接地维护死者的人格利益就可以了。但是，在很多情况下，从保护死者的角度说，这是不充分的，还可能造成对公民的不平等保护。而“近亲属权利保护说”所提出的死者人格利益没有必要独立保护的理由也是不充分的，因为这些理由是普通名誉保护都会遭遇到的难题，但是有难题并不代表普通名誉权就不需要保护了。
“延伸保护说”值得赞成的基本理由是：对相关民事制度的解释更为圆通和严密；有法哲学上的支持；体现了现代民法对人的生老病死更深切的关怀。但是“延伸保护说”也有需要补充的地方，这就是需要明确承认侵害死者名誉行为会有双重侵害和对法益与权利做清晰区分。这些补充不是基本立场的推翻，也就是说，“延伸保护说”在修正的基础上还是可以维护的。
而在理论上，“延伸保护说”最为根本的缺陷在于没有指明人格利益延伸的根源，这也是“延伸保护说”能否成立的最为关键的问题。人格利益延伸的根源就在于死者人格利益独立保护的正当性。从伦理学、社会学、哲学上的生存论以及中国文化传统等角度来说，死者权利的延伸保护都是应该的和必要的。
如果一种理论有美好的理念，但是在制度方面行不通，不具有操作性，这种理论就是空想，就法学这一重视且应该致力于实践的学问来说，其意义就是微乎其微的。制度设计的过程实际上是从可实践性的角度对理论的一种验证。侵害死者名誉虽然是一种特殊的侵害名誉的行为，但它还是具有侵害名誉权行为的一般结构，而一般侵权结构并不是讨论的重点，焦点还是侵犯死者名誉的特殊性。因此，关于死者名誉保护的制度设计问题主要包括死者人格利益延伸保护的范围、死者人格利益的保护主体以及延伸保护的期限三个方面。关于死者人格利益延伸保护的范围，按照人格利益与本人之生命是否有不可分割之关系为标准，《最高人民法院关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》所确定的范围是适宜的；对于死者人格利益的保护主体，应该设立死者人格利益保护人制度；死者人格利益的保护应当设定期限，而不是无限期的保护，参照相关制度以及中国国情，以18年为保护期限较为妥当。
也许不必太在意制度上的规定以及给这种制度所标上的名称，更重要的是其背后的理念和民事法律发展的趋势。原因在于：理念支撑着整个民法的大厦；发展趋势代表着我们需要努力的方向。保护死者人格利益反映了民法保护的重心向人的回归，是民法对人更为全面、由生到死、由肉体到内心的关怀。这些与第二次世界大战之后人权运动的发展和近年来“死亡学（Thanatology）”的兴起是分不开的。尽管人格权在近些年来有很大的扩展，但是关于死者人格利益的保护在学理上和法律实践上还存在一些盲点，如坟墓中的权利（Sepulchral Rights）等。这些都需要我们在未来民法学领域予以继续思考。

Abstract

A case began in Tianjin in 1987 concerns the controversy over fringement upon the citizen′s right to reputation: Chen Xiuqin brought an action against Wei Xilin and Jinwan News for encroachment (simply we call Hehuanv′s controversy over invasion of citizen′s right to reputation). We can say that it is the beginning of protection to reputation of  the dead person. The main point in the dispute is the legislative authority on protection of the right of fame. Because Hehuanv had been dead. The controversy had been abatement of action by agreement reached through mediation since it went to count in July in 1987 and came to agreement in 1990, and it reached a authoritive conclusion on this core issue only by judicial suggestion from the Supreme People′s Court of the PRC in 1989. From then on, there are many cases emerged pertain to the file an action on fame of dead person. The author collected ten more cases about it. In view of this, Supreme People′s Court of the PRC released  a series of judicical interpretations on protection of fame of the dead person. It′s form and the concrete connotation is different. Therefore, the issue on protection of reputation to  the dead person is continuous.
There are many disputes pertain to the theory on how to protect the reputation of  the dead person. These distinctive theories, not with standing, didn′t agree mostly that we should protect the fame of  the dead person. There are still continuous debate on how to give an announcement from the civil jural system and the theory of civil law. Hence, I think we should make every endeavour to consult all kinds of theories and check the development tendency of civil law and the theory of civil law. It is necessary for us to list the more flexible, more wellconceived theory of civil law.
My academic thesis demonstrated the protection of reputation of the dead person according to the clue—from practice to theory and  return theory to practice, also, from the perspective of macro abstract to micro legal system. First of all, I epitomize the fame and the right of fame, and point out the characteristic of social and the right of reputation in a broad. I try to bound the framework of fames and rights of reputation. It laid a prerequisite foundation for farther poof.
00死者人格利益的民法保护Abstract00Secondly, the book tries to analysize the Chinese law and practice cases about protective fame of the dead person. It makes positively research for immediating law system on protective fame of the dead person. We can retrieve the sue from the subject, get the judgment of jury from the case, and hear the rebound of social by analysizing the virtual law, the events of accusation and the judgments by jurisdiction, only by this we can reveal the station of protective reputation of the dead person.
The contention to protect reputation of the dead person is the new topic for discussion even in the foreign countries in the perspective of the comparative jurisprudence. It was listed to argue through legal practice and theory by AngloAmerican law system only originated in late 1980s, and even in the eyes of Continental law system in 1970s. There are distinctive dissertations on this new topic based on their own legal system overally. Therefore, the legal academic inference on the protective reputation of the dead person in our country comparatively is in accordance to the argument of the world.
There are eight points on behalf of the whole academic issues in today′s China, which concentrate on the problem of protective form of  the dead person. Whether the personal benefit of  the dead person be protected or not, and is it the benefit of  the dead person or interest of the near relatives of the dead person, or both of them being protected. In addition, the interest of  the dead personality should be protected independently or not and so on. In the perspective of civil basic theory, we can debar firstly “wording of protective right of the dead person”, “wording of heirship of personal interest”, “wording of trace of body” and “wording of the family interest of  the dead person”. Hence, there only left out “wording on protecting right of near relative”, “wording on associated interests of immediate family”, “wording of legal interest of  the dead person” and “wording of protract protection of the dead person”.
Considering about the internal legal relations and deepen theory, we find there being two ways of saying, “wording of protective rights of nextofkin”, “wording of protract protection on rights”. There are typical parlances on the current arguments of protective rights of  the dead person.
“Wording of protective rights of near relative” says that it only can protect indirectly the personal interest by protecting the interest of the immediate family or the personal dignity of the proximity, but on the most circumstance, it is unfair for the dead person. It is also unedequate and it may not be lead to protect person alone equally. It is also sufficient to nonprotection independently for interests of the dead person, which says by “wording of protective right of new relatives”, because it can be faced with the wording of the normalfameprotection, but it is not equal to say that the normal right of fame is not necessary for us to protect!
 The reason I agree with the theory of “wording of protract protection right to the dead person” is that the parlance can explain the relative civil law system more flexible wellconceived. The wording lists the deepen concern on the birth, the elder, the sicker and the death for person. It is the current spirit of our civil law.
All of this can be stranded up for philosophical jurisprudence. As to the wording, we should admit unanimous that there are doubledamage when invading a citizen′s right to reputation and we should distinguish explicitly the right from the legal interest, we don′t want to compliment it instead of throwing over the basic view of wording. That is to say “wording of protract protection right to the dead person” can be persisted.
Originally, the key bemish of the wording is that the protracted protective right to the dead person do not demonstrate the reason the personal interests can be extended, it is the fate problem for the acceptance of the wording. In fact, the protract personal right originated from its reasonal approach to protect independently, it is necessary for us to list its reason by ethnology, social jurisprudence and philosophical survivorship.
Maybe it will be an utopian theory if the theory only have good idea, but the system can not be practicable and enforced. Also it may be little meaning because law tend to focus on practicing. Usually the procedure of designing a system is to proof the theory according to the perspective of practice.
Although the invasion of  the dead personal reputation is special, its structure belongs to act of encroachment reputation. Therefore, it includes three ways of designing the law system on how to protect  the dead person′s fame, such as the protective scope to the dead personal interest, the protective body to dead personal interest, and limitation of protract protection. According to the explanation to some rules of the Supreme People′s Court of the PRC on spiritual tortuous damages, the extent is proper, we should establish a law system for personal interest of protected person conciding with the protected body of dead personal interest, we should also design a limitation to protect the interest of the dead person instead of endless of its protection, it is adequate if the limitation is beyond the 18 years.
In contrast to the rules and the name of the designed system, we should place emphasis on the tendency of civil law and the civil idea behind it because the building of civil law is supported by the idea, and what we tries to do is to follow the tendency of future, it reflects on the emphasis of civil law protection to protect personal interest to the dead person, which show loving care for person is related to the movement of personal rights after the Second World War. Also it pertain to Thanatology evoked currently, the right of person has been developing recently. Nevertheless, there is some unknown knowledge of law, not only in theory, but also law practice such as Sepulchral Right, etc. The continuous research and debate on this title is helpful and essential.