The introduction of the balancing of interests approach through Article 998 of the Civil Code does not com-pletely free the normative system of determining civil liability for personality rights infringements from the constraints of the elements of liability theory.Based on distinguishing between material personality rights and immaterial personality rights,spe-cific personality rights and general personality rights,and whether there are pre-defined typical types of infringing acts for im-material personality rights,Article 998 differentiates between the elements of liability and the balancing of interests in determi-ning civil liability for personality rights infringements.For infringements that clearly define the connotation and extension,and that enjoy self-sufficiency in the exercise of material personality rights,a strict elements of liability approach is adopted.Only in exceptional cases where the law provides specific regulations is the judge allowed to exercise discretion in balancing the inter-ests to determine the corresponding civil liability.For non-material personality rights,which possess strong social significance and often face conflicts of interest,the determination of liability is based on the existence of specific factual elements,particu-larly the presence of pre-defined typical infringing acts.This distinguishes between the domains where the legal effects of cor-responding actions are primarily evaluated through the elements of liability and the domains where the legal effects are primarily evaluated through the balancing of interests approach.
Personality Rights InfringementDynamic System TheoryElements of LiabilityFactual ElementsBal-ancing of Interests
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
