全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

论消费民事公益诉讼损害赔偿责任实现中的“替代性行为”
On “Alternative Behavior” in the Realization of Damage Compensation Liability in Consumer Civil Public Interest Litigation

DOI: 10.12677/ojls.2024.124358, PP. 2518-2530

Keywords: 消费民事公益诉讼,功能主义,替代性行为
Consumer Civil Public Interest Litigation
, Functionalism, Vicarious Behavior

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

为消解损害赔偿责任实现过程中的赔偿金分配难题,消费民事公益诉讼当事人与法院创新性地探索出“以行为赔偿损失”的替代性责任承担方式,即用履行特定行为替代损害赔偿金的缴纳。以消费民事公益诉讼功能为研究视角,替代性行为因可间接补偿受害人的权益以及威慑(潜在)不法行为人而具存在之正当。在设置具体替代行为时,首先其应替代惩罚性赔偿;其次应属于消费领域,履行时有地域、时间限制及履行额度;再次以消费民事公益诉讼功能发挥与否,并辅以最优威慑与功利主义理论对替代性行为内容进行审核;最后将设置完成的替代性行为公之于众,方可有效发挥消费民事公益诉讼的补偿与威慑功能。
In order to solve the problem of compensation distribution in the process of realizing damage compensation liability, the litigants and the courts of consumer civil public interest litigation innovatively explore the alternative liability bearing mode of “compensation for loss by behavior”, that is, the performance of specific behavior instead of the payment of damage compensation. From the perspective of consumer civil public interest litigation, alternative behavior is justified because it can indirectly compensate the rights and interests of victims and deter (potential) wrongdoers. When setting up specific substitute behavior, first of all, it should replace punitive damages; secondly, it should belong to the field of consumption, and there are geographical and time limits and limits of performance; thirdly, the author reviews the content of alternative behavior based on the function of consumer civil public interest litigation and the theory of optimal deterrence and utilitarianism; finally, only by making the alternative behavior public can the compensation and deterrent functions of consumer civil public interest litigation be effectively brought into play.

References

[1]  朱淑丽. 挣扎在理想与现实之间: 功能主义比较法90年回顾[J]. 中外法学, 2011(6): 1276-1296.
[2]  王泽鉴. 损害赔偿[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2018: 25.
[3]  Schwartz, G.T. (1997) Mixed Theories of Tort Law: Affirming Both Deterrence and Corrective Justice. Texas Law Review, 75, 1801-1834.
[4]  Barnett, K. (1987) Equitable Trusts: An Effective Remedy in Consumer Class Actions. The Yale Law Journal, 96, 1591-1614.
https://doi.org/10.2307/796495
[5]  熊跃敏. 消费者群体性损害赔偿诉讼的类型化分析[J]. 中国法学, 2014(1): 196-210.
[6]  肖永平, 秦红嫚. 论外国惩罚性损害赔偿判决的部分承认与执行[J]. 江西社会科学, 2017(3): 162-171.
[7]  郑晓剑. 侵权损害完全赔偿原则之检讨[J]. 法学, 2017(12): 157-173.
[8]  Wright, R.W. (2003) The Grounds and Extent of Legal Responsibility. San Diego Law Review, 40, 1425-1532.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.438640
[9]  胡潇. 当代社会行为方式嬗变的时空关系论[J]. 天津社会科学, 2019(1): 29-38.
[10]  [美]波斯纳. 法律的经济分析[M]. 第2版. 蒋兆康, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2012: 846.
[11]  王健, 张靖. 威慑理论与我国反垄断罚款制度的完善——法经济学的研究进路[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2016(4): 124-136.
[12]  张卫平. 民事执行法的目的与民事执行法的制度建构[J]. 理论探索, 2023(3): 5-13.
[13]  吕英杰. 惩罚性赔偿与刑事责任的竞合、冲突与解决[J]. 中外法学, 2022(5): 1299-1319.
[14]  金晓伟, 冷思伦. 刑事附带民事公益诉讼中的惩罚性赔偿制度完善研究——从危害食品安全领域的576份裁判文书切入[J]. 中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版), 2023, 39(2): 47-60.
[15]  张建文. 个人信息保护民事公益诉讼的规范解读与司法实践[J]. 郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022(3): 31-35.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133