絕對權、絕對義務及其相對化──民事權利與法益保護的單一框架

法益保護不足與司法過度擴張同時存在。概念結構分析表明法益之本質即權利，如此，民事權利與法益是平等保護還是區分保護的問題便不再存在。即便在舊有概念下，民事權利和法益各自內部的區分保護是絕對的，平等保護是相對的。與絕對權保護以客體為核心相應，真正的法益(新法益概念)是以行為為核心的絕對義務規範所保護的，權利主體和客體暫不明確、但實際存在的權利的總體。在新的“權利—法益”概念下，傳統理論中對權利義務的混沌認識可澄清為“絕對權—絕對義務”框架，其他情形是二者的混合或相對化。這一理論框架使得對民事權利和法益的侵權責任構成要件的分析具有平等的起點，使得權利義務法定的邊界和實現途徑更加清晰，從而解決前述問題，亦彰顯公法與私法之關係及以私權為本的理念。

Insufficient protection and excessive judicial expansion co-exist for legal interests. The structural analysis of concept shows that the essence of legal interests is rights. Thus, the question of whether civil rights and legal interests are equally or differentially protected no longer exists. Even under the old concept, respectively within the civil rights and legal interests, differentiated protection is absolute, and equal protection is relative. Corresponding to the fact that the protection of absolute rights takes the object as the core, the real legal interest (the new concept of legal interest) is the totality of rights protected by the absolute obligation norm with behavior as the core, and the subject and object of which are temporarily unclear but actually exist. Under the new concepts of right and legal interest, the chaotic understanding of rights/obligations in traditional theories can be clarified as an absolute right-absolute duty framework, and in other cases it is a mixture or relativization of the two. This theoretical framework makes the examination of the constituent elements of tort liability of civil rights and legal interests have an equal starting point, so that the principle of legal prescription of both rights and obligations has a clearer boundary and a clearer way to realize them, so as to solve the aforementioned problems, and also highlights the relationship between public law and private law and the idea of regarding private rights as the basis.