On The Judicial Protection Of The Right To Peace Of Life

Peace of mind is an ideal state of life in which people are freed from troubled lives.Through "peace",people’s stress can be relieved,and the tired body and mind can be recuperated.However,with the development of society,people are more and more eager to live in a peaceful state.There are many reasons for this phenomenon,but there are two main reasons.On the one hand,the trend of population densification and industrialization has made the physical space distance between people shrinking and compressing personal space.On the other hand,the development of science and technology in modern society has made "technology" ahead of "regulation",and various smart devices have become "sharp weapons" that intrude on the peace of citizens’ lives while facilitating people’s production and life.In order to protect the peace of life of individuals and enable people to have a resting space for their spirits,Article 1032 of the Civil Code of our country classifies the right to peace of life under the protection of the system of privacy rights,and legalizes the peace of life.However,there are still many difficulties in the judicial protection of this right.These dilemmas are mainly manifested in two aspects: the first aspect is the dilemma of active protection of the right to peace of life,that is,the low applicability of the personality right injunction system,the limitation of infringement determination and tort liability;the second aspect is the dilemma of passive protection of the right to tranquility of life,that is The right to tranquillity of life is limited and protected,and the judicial application is confusing.In this regard,this paper studies from the following four aspects,and explores the solution to the dilemma of judicial protection of the right to peace of life.First,clarify the concept and legal status of the right to peace of life,and deeply understand the right to peace of life.Interpret "what is a right" from the perspective of legal philosophy to demonstrate that peace of life is a right.And on this basis,it analyzes and discusses the essential difference between moral rights and legal rights,which is "whether it is protected by the state’s coercive force and stipulated by law",and compares the right to peace of life with this difference.Since the "Civil Code" stipulates that the object of the right to privacy is privacy,and privacy includes the tranquility of life,if the tranquility of others’ lives is violated,they must seek the protection of the state’s coercive force.Therefore,the right to live in peace is a legal right.Besides,privacy is divided into general privacy and special privacy.General privacy refers to private information and private activities,etc.,which protects the privacy of private affairs and restricts the collection and disclosure of private information by others.The special privacy is the tranquility of life,which protects the tranquility of private life and restricts others from secretly photographing,peeping,and collecting private information.It can be seen that the right to peace of life is a right based on privacy,a right different from the general right to privacy,and a non-independent right.Secondly,fully understand the prohibition of personality rights and improve the applicability of the prohibition system of personality rights.The right to peace of life is a spiritual personality right,and it is difficult to restore the original state after being damaged,and the injunction of the personality right is a remedy to prevent the occurrence of damage in time before the damage occurs.This method is the most effective way to protect the right to peace of life.However,by sorting out relevant judicial judgment documents,it is found that the most effective remedy is very low in applicability.To this end,it is necessary to fully understand and clarify the applicable conditions of the prohibition of personality rights,so as to strengthen the protection of the right to peace of life.Thirdly,solve the dilemma of post-litigation protection,and undertake the "relaxation" for infringement determination and infringement liability.For the determination of infringement,it is necessary to abandon the damage elements that constitute the elements of general tort liability,and on this basis,combine the dynamic system theory to construct the judgment standard for the infringement of the right to tranquility of life.As the right to peace of life is a spiritual personality right,it is often mental damage,and it is difficult to prove the general degree of mental damage,such as insomnia,mental weakness,etc.,which will make the infringement of the right to peace of life to a general degree not obtainable.Relief,compresses the protection space of the right to peace of life.Therefore,it is necessary to abandon the elements of damage,and in accordance with the provisions of Article 998 of the "Civil Code",combined with the dynamic system theory,to construct a judgment standard for the infringement of the right to tranquility of life.In addition,it is necessary to deeply study different ways of tort liability,and according to the characteristics of the right to peace of life,so that the function of each liability method can be brought into full play.Finally,regulate the application of the restrictions and protection regulations on the right to tranquility of life to ensure that the benefits are maximized.As a right,the right to peace of life will inevitably conflict with other rights,so the protection of the right to peace of life must be restricted.However,due to the particularity of individual cases,my country’s "Civil Code" cannot refine the provisions on limiting the protection of personality rights,and judges must be given discretion to weigh interests.However,judges will inevitably be affected by internal and external factors when adjudicating,which can easily lead to confusion in judicial application.To this end,it is necessary to regulate the application of the restriction and protection provisions on the right to tranquility of life,and clarify its restriction basis and rules,so as to regulate the discretion of judges and achieve the purpose of the application of restriction and protection provisions.