法律法学夫妻忠实义务研究中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文资料对照外文翻译

外文：

A Study on responsibility of conjugal chastity

Marriage is unification in wedlock concerning both party’s right and responsibility voluntarily arranged by men and women for the purpose of living together permanently. In order to live together happily and satisfactorily, mutually supporting is needed to guarantee the affluence of physical life and mutual chastity to support the felicitousness of the spiritual life. Therefore, mutual chastity is a major factor to support the wedlock, which is also a focus of marriage law. During the revision of marriage law in 2001,the debate over the responsibility of mutual chastity was the most appealing issue. After intense arguing, finally the article “the spouses shall maintain mutual chastity” was lis ted in the revised marriage law. However the argument over mutual chastity of the spouses has never stopped, more issues concerning it are still needed to be further studied. The thesis tries to investigate and review the mutual responsibility of conjugal chastity systematically. In order to study the subject systematically , the historical ,sociological ,comparative law ,empirical ,dynamic and static analysis approaches by which the historical development of conjugal chastity、jurisprudential analysis of it and present regulation on it are observed and reviewed, are employed in the research. The thesis consists of four chapters. ChapterⅠ,which is composed of three subchapters ,observes the mutual responsibility of conjugal chastity from the perspective of its historical development. In Subchapter Ⅰexplains the exact connotation of chastity and ascertains the definite meaning of responsibility of conjugal chastity further. The basic meaning of chastity is loyal to each other, which connotes that the husband and wife should be faithful to one another not only in their acts but also in mental communication as well.

Keywords: marriage responsibility of conjugal chastity spouse spouse’s right divorce

However, the mental communication is not the regulating target of law, thus the conjugal chastity only denotes mutual loyalty in their sexual life and denies extramarital sex from the angle of marriage law. In SubchapterⅡ,the author observes and studies the awareness and responsibility of conjugal chastity under the primitive 、slavery、feudal and the contemporary society irrespectively. After that the author has commented on the changes of attitudes towards the conjugal chastity in the Chinese marital legislation. During the investigation into the conjugal chastity in the prolonged history, the author found that the regulation on responsibility of the conjugal chastity was implied by two major line, that is, the evolution from inequality between men and women to the equality between the both; and the regulation on it through statutory remedy by private right instead of the interference by public power. Simultaneously ,the linkage between the development ,evolution of mutual responsibility of conjugal chastity and those of human marriage life and the changes of the viewpoints on conjugal relations ,sexual morality and sex awareness are deeply connected. In SubchapterⅢ,the author mainly observes the influence of the changes of conjugal love,attitudes towards family and sex upon the viewpoint over conjugal chastity in contem porary China. As the wheels of history rolls on, the human’s viewpoint over the sexual morality and sex awareness has been changing all the time. As the inflation of individualism and liberalism in most capitalist countries, the previous exclusive love attitudes has been replaced by the non-interference of mutual freedom. At the same time the viewpoints of the judicial circle and judicature have changed more or less by the contemporary thought, therefore the strict rule has been loosened. According to the previous research, the author claims that when we restructures the mutual responsibility of conjugal chastity in marriage legislation in our country, the changes of contemporary conjugal love,attitudes towards family and sex should be investigated and taken into account. In the following part the author has looked into the changes in present China in detail, and some personal opinions to them are also released.

On the basis of the study above, the author holds that the responsibility of conjugal chastity is closely related with conjugal relationship, in regard to the influence of awareness of conjugal love、family and sex upon the responsibility of conjugal chastity, two aspects

should be considered, that is, on the one hand ,the changes should not be ignored, in the design of responsibility of conjugal chastity, the old route to recover the adultery law and punish the adulterers had been discarded by the Age, and public power exploited in the punishment of extramarital sex should be cautious; On the other hand, the changes of viewpoints to marriage and family upon the conjugal love have never undermined the stable cornerstone of family structure in the Chinese society that is because the values of marital morality under the background of Confucian culture have always been supporting the Chinese marriage firmly. Some social surveys show that the sex concerning extramarital sex, especially that has gravely undermined the stability of families, the attitudes of our people are clear, i.e., they oppose the extramarital sex. In the western countries, whereas, after the disastrous experiment of “sex revolution”, the slogans of “returning family” and “faithfulness is fundamental to conjugal love” are back to be reused. Thus writing the responsibility of conjugal chastity into law can be considered the promotion of faithfulness in conjugal love, that is the inner voices of the people at home and abroad. China should get integrated into the world trend, learn from the lessons of foreign countries and not recover the old way of “serious results getting from excessive freedom of sex” in the West, thus our marriage law can be made as a new symbol of our socialist marriage and family. ChapterⅡ,consisting of three subchapters, is the jurisprudential analysis over responsibility of conjugal chastity. At the beginning of Subchapter Ⅰ, the author holds that the responsibility of conjugal chastity is the essence of marriage. The responsibility of conjugal chastity is the natural demand of marriage, which is also an embodiment of the exclusivity of conjugal sex and the demand of social nature of marriage. In our socialist society, monogamy is the requisite demand of the responsibility of conjugal chastity, which is a vigorous safeguard of monogamy as well. Then, the author analyses the juristic value of the entry of responsibility of conjugal chastity into law, the major reason of which is that the responsibility of conjugal chastity is always considered as a good virtue.

The safeguard of responsibility of conjugal chastity, in essence, could be regarded as the protection and promotion of justice by nation. The responsibility of conjugal chastity embodies the humanistic solicitude of law.The humanistic solicitude towards responsibility of

conjugal chastity is such a proposition essentially, that is ,the regulation and bound of the marital life of people by law is to lead them to live a safe、happy and satisfactory marital life, which can connect the individuality of man with the social nature of man intrinsically; Therefore, certain harmonies from the equilibrium of interests between individuals and society may be reached, and the value of man can be elevated. SubchapterⅡmainly observes and reviews the juristic identification of the nature of responsibility of conjugal chastity. At first, the author holds that the responsibility of conjugal chastity is a derivative right of spouse’s right, which is a basic right of dignity between the husband and wife formulated by law. The maintenance of wedlock is based on two elementary conditions, that is, the responsibility of cohabitation and being loyal to each other. Therefore the responsibility of conjugal chastity, a derivative right from the spouse’s right, becomes the core of spouse’s right. And the characteristics of the responsibility of conjugal chastity are generalized in detail thereinafter. In the following part of this subchapter, the author concludes that the responsibility of conjugal chastity inevitably has the nature of right of personality. Though the responsibility of conjugal chastity has dual natures of right of personality and right of dignity, they should be distinguished.

Right of dignity is the basic nature of the responsibility of conjugal chastity, whereas, right of personality is the attaching nature of the responsibility of conjugal chastity. In SubchapterⅢ , the author makes a comparative law research on the responsibility of conjugal chastity and the other related rights. Firstly, the author analyzed the relationship between the responsibility of conjugal chastity and the right of sexual freedom from different perspectives. And then the relationship between the responsibility of conjugal chastity and privacy is being observed and analyzed. In chapterⅢ,the author makes a reflection on the responsibility of conjugal chastity in reality and some suggestions are also brought up for the future legislation on this subject. After further study the author holds that the responsibility of conjugal chastity may be regulated by morality, but the regulation by law should not excluded, and the private nature of conjugal relation should be taken into account simultaneously.

After that, the judicial regulation on the responsibility of conjugal chastity is analyzed. At the final part, the author brings up some suggestions on the legislation of the responsibility

of conjugal chastity in the future, that is, (1) the setting up of the definition of spouse’s right;(2) taking adultery as a statutory reason for divorce;(3) in the compensation for damages arisen from divorce, adultery should be considered as a statutory reason in the lawsuit of compensation for damages in divorce and change the “no-fault party” term into “victim”. Furthermore, the compensation for damages shall be not only applied to divorce by lawsuit but also to registry divorce and the scale of compensation for damages should include property and spiritual damages. ChapterⅣis a prospect of the future research on the responsibility of conjugal chastity . Though the thesis is a tentative study on the responsibility of conjugal chastity, the target of it is clear, i.e., all the efforts made in this thesis is trying to perfect the marital legislation and a spur to induce more better ideas brought up by academia.

译文：

夫妻忠实义务研究

婚姻是男女双方以永久共同生活为目的，依法自愿缔结的具有权利义务内容的结合。为了永久的共同生活幸福美满，夫妻间不仅应该相互扶持，以保证物质生活的幸福，还应该互相忠实，以维系精神生活的美满。因此，夫妻互相忠实是维系婚姻的重要因素，同时也成为法律关注的对象。婚姻法修订过程中，有关忠实义务的讨论一度成为最引人关注的问题，最终修订后的婚姻法在第四条中规定了“夫妻应当相互忠实”。但是，有关夫妻忠实义务的争议并没有停止，而是出现了更多有待研究的问题。本文是对夫妻忠实义务系统研究的尝试与探索。作者运用历史学的研究方法、社会学的研究方法、比较分析的研究方法、实证与规范的研究方法、动态与静态的研究方法等等论述了夫妻忠实义务的历史沿革、夫妻忠实义务的法理分析及对夫妻忠实义务的现实规制，以期能对夫妻忠实义务进行深入系统的研究。

全文分为四章。第一章是对夫妻忠实义务的历史考察。第一节作者对忠实的含义进行诠释并进一步确定了夫妻忠实义务的内涵。忠实的基本含义是忠诚可靠，暗含了不仅在行为上而且在思想和心理活动中也要忠诚。但是，由于思想感情不是法律调整的对象，因此婚姻法中的夫妻忠实义务仅指夫妻在性生活上互守贞操，保持专一，不应有婚外性行为。第二节作者沿着婚姻制度的历史发展，分别对原始社会、奴隶社会、封建社会及现代婚姻制度下的夫妻忠实观念进行了考察。学者们对原始社会是否存在过群婚及血缘婚姻、一夫一妻婚姻是否自古就有存在争议，但不管历史的本来面目如何，原始社会的婚姻方式都不是现代意义上的婚姻，其两性行为都不是由法律来规范的行为，而仅仅是一种原始习惯。随着阶级关系的形成和私有制的建立，个体婚产生，但其出现的根本原因并非基于男女平等的要求，而是掌握着生产资料的男子为了维护血统的纯正、

保证私有制继承给自己的亲生子女的需要。这就要求女子对其丈夫的的绝对忠实，这无疑为后来奴隶社会、封建社会时期男女不平等的忠实义务奠定了基础。在奴隶社会、封建社会时期，夫妻忠实义务具有妻子单方面负有忠实义务和对忠实义务的法律调整主要依靠公法调整两大特点。其形成的最根本原因是宗法制度下的父权制和夫权制，而这一社会制度又衍生出其他重要的原因，主要有：1、夫妻一体主义原则。2、性欲的生殖观点。3、社会性亲子关系的决定作用。4、婚外性行为违反婚姻的规范性。5、男女自然生理不同等。当历史步入资本主义社会，男女平等、夫妻人格相互独立、将婚姻视为契约的现代婚姻制度产生。在这一时期，资本主义法律普遍把夫妻置于平等地位，规定双方互相负有忠实义务，视之为维护夫妻关系特质及稳定的一个要素，并且规定了违反这一义务的法律责任。《婚姻法》第四条中规定：“夫妻应当相互忠实，互相尊重”，并将重婚、有配偶者与他人同居的不忠行为作为离婚的法定理由之一，无过错方可请求损害赔偿。这一举措，无论是对婚姻法理论还是对于司法实践，都有着极其重要的意义。第三节作者讨论了我国当代婚恋、家庭与性观念的变化及对夫妻忠实观的影响。在市场经济的冲击和影响下，我国婚姻家庭领域正在发生着以功利化、市场化、人本化和开放化为特点的嬗变。

功利化是指在社会关系和社会交往中，人们越来越追求“经济性”，契约关系取代伦理关系、经济关系超越亲情关系已成为许多国人认同的交往方式和生活准则；市场化是指市场经济带来的经济信息和人际关系的重要性，促使人们重视业缘联系而不断淡化血缘关系和亲缘关系，以家庭为中心的婚姻关系转移到以社会为中心的婚姻关系，稳定的家庭结构受到冲击；人本化是指在经济生活和社会生活中越来越强调人的需要，“以人为中心”的新概念引入家庭领域，夫妻经济平等、人格平等成为家庭稳定的现代基础；开放化是指市场经济信息化带来的家庭关系的开放化和家庭成员交往的扩大化，使得家庭结构松散，夫妻间相互约束力减弱，夫妻感情沟通和信息交流障碍增加，从而加大了婚姻家庭矛盾和冲突的机率。与此同时，西方性自由思想对中国的影响，也使一部分人产生“爱情与婚姻不具有统一关系”、“不一定要严守忠贞观念”、“性自由是社会发展的必然趋势”等等思想。由于上述种种原因，改革开放以来我国青年的婚恋家庭观念发生巨大变化，表现为：1.青年择偶的自主意识增强；择偶条件中经济因素与情爱因素日益升值。2.维系婚姻的主要纽带正从责任转向爱情；婚姻的稳定受到冲击。3.性开放从表层走向深层，婚前性交往呈现出快速上升态势；青年人对“婚外恋”持一定程度的

宽容等等。由于夫妻忠实观念与两性关系紧密相连，对于我国改革开放以来的婚恋、家庭与性观念的变化对夫妻忠实义务的影响，笔者认为应从两方面考量。一方面，我们不能无视这些变化，在对夫妻忠实问题的法律调整的制度设计上，不能走恢复通奸法、惩办通奸者这一已为时代抛弃的老路，不能动不动就运用国家公权力对婚外性行为实施惩治。另一方面，我们要看到，这些由婚姻家庭观念转变带来的婚恋行为的改变并没有根本上动摇国家稳定的家庭结构，传统文化中的婚姻道德价值观仍牢固地支撑着国人的婚姻大厦。在西方国家经历了性革命的“灾难性尝试”后，已经重新将“复归家庭”、“爱情以忠诚为本”作为新的口号。因此，将“夫妻应当互相忠实”写入法律，倡导夫妻忠实，不仅是国人的呼声，也是世界的呼声。

第二章是对夫妻忠实义务的法理分析。第一节作者分析了夫妻忠实义务的法理基础。首先，夫妻忠实义务是婚姻的本质要求。马克思曾指出：“婚姻不能听从已婚者的任性，相反地，已婚者的任性应该服从婚姻的本质”。夫妻忠实义务是婚姻自然属性的要求，是性爱排他性的体现。当事人相互间的性爱，本质上就是要排斥其他一切与性爱相冲突的主客观条件而成为个体婚姻的基础。婚姻是满足夫妻性需要的场所，也是限制男女性行为的单位，社会把人们的性生活限制在婚姻范畴内，有利于性需要的普遍满足，同时防止满足性需要的自然属性而引发社会冲突和混乱。夫妻忠实义务又是婚姻社会属性的要求。在我国社会制度下，要求实行名副其实的一夫一妻制。只有实行一夫一妻制，才能保证夫妻感情专一，真诚相爱，同心协力抚育子女，承担对家庭和社会的责任。一夫一妻制也是实现男女平等、保护妇女和子女的合法权益的必要条件。而夫妻忠实义务是一夫一妻制的必然要求，也是维护一夫一妻制的有力保障。其次，作者分析了将夫妻忠实义务纳入法律保护的目的价值。夫妻忠实义务之所以应纳入法律保护的领域，其中一个重要的原因是夫妻忠实义务是人类社会所崇尚的美德，对夫妻忠实义务的保护实质上可被视为国家对正义的维护与促进。

将夫妻忠实义务纳入法律保护不仅使得法律提供了解决婚姻家庭关系中纠纷的适

当救济手段，而且通过惩罚违反法律规定、防碍婚姻家庭关系自然延续的行为人，补偿基于夫妻忠实义务而受到损害的夫妻一方，进一步伸张了婚姻家庭中的正义要求，恢复了婚姻家庭中的正义理性。此外，夫妻忠实义务体现了法律的人文关怀。在婚姻制度设计中，放纵公民的私生活自主权，否定忠实义务规制婚姻关系的合理性，最终结果只能是人们道德底线的崩溃，公民法律意识的弱化。人存在于这样的社会中，所谓婚姻美满、

安全、幸福都只能是天方夜谭。夫妻忠实义务的人文关怀实质上是这样的命题，即法律对公民婚姻生活必要的约束与规制是引导人们走向安全、幸福、圆满婚姻的必经之路。第二节，作者对夫妻忠实义务进行法律性质定位。首先，夫妻忠实义务是配偶权的派生权利。配偶权是基于法律规定的夫妻身份地位而产生的基本身份权。夫妻关系得以维系，两个重要的条件就是夫妻同居义务和夫妻忠实义务，因此，夫妻忠实义务是配偶权的核心内容，也是配偶权的派生权利。根据配偶权理论，夫妻忠实义务具有以下特点：1.

夫妻忠实义务是一种法律上的权利，不能把纯情感领域的东西囊括进来。2.夫妻忠实义务具有权利义务复合性的特点。3．夫妻忠实义务具有平等性。分析夫妻忠实义务的权利性质，作者认为其应属于相对权、请求权，因为夫妻一方忠实请求权的实现必须依赖另一方不为婚外性行为这一特定的不作为。当然，其相对权性质只是针对当事人本身而言，并不意味着任何第三人可以侵害。其次，夫妻忠实义务不可避免的具有一般人格权的性质。突出表现在夫妻一方违反忠实义务与他人为婚外性行为，并使夫妻对方或第三人间接或直接得知的情况。这种行为不仅侵害了夫妻对方基于配偶关系的身份权，而且也同时侵害了基于人为之人的人格尊严。尽管夫妻忠实义务兼具身份权和人格权的双重属性，但是二者之间有轻重之分。身份权是夫妻忠实义务的根本属性，因为婚姻关系是夫妻忠实义务的前提性条件，夫妻互负忠实义务是婚姻关系合法有效成立的必然结果。而人格权是夫妻忠实义务的依附性属性，只有婚姻关系合法有效存在，夫妻一方违反夫妻忠实义务为婚外性行为使夫妻对方或第三人间接或直接得知等诸项条件均得到满足时，这种性质才能凸显出来。

第三节作者将夫妻忠实义务与其他相关权利进行比较研究。首先，作者分析了夫妻忠实义务与性自由权的关系。现代的家庭应是爱情与义务的统一。性自由权不是绝对的，必然要受到法律的限制，既要受到一定程度上公权力的干预，同时在婚姻领域中也要受婚姻契约的约束。随着婚姻的缔结，公民原有的性自由权因性行为对象的选定而使其成为受配偶身份限制的同居权，因此，配偶同居权是公民性自由权在婚姻关系中的表现形式。婚姻内的性权利只是一种相对性权利，在积极方面表现为夫妻之间负有同居的义务；在消极方面则表现为夫妻双方有权要求对方承担不与第三人性交的义务。其次，作者分析了夫妻忠实义务与隐私权的关系。由于性行为的隐秘性，对夫妻一方忠实请求权的保护可能引发与配偶另一方或第三方隐私权的冲突。对此作者认为法律既然赋予夫妻忠实请求权就暗含了夫妻一方对他方涉及夫妻生活内容的知情权，所以，夫或妻有权

对配偶一方的婚外恋行为行使自己的知情权。而在知情权与隐私权相冲突时应借鉴权利协调原则，即夫妻有权对配偶一方的婚外性行为行使知情权，但不能扩大公开范围，到处宣扬，否则，就构成对另一方隐私权的侵犯。

第三章，笔者对现实生活中有关夫妻忠实义务的问题进行了回应，并对夫妻忠实义务将来之立法提出建议。第一节作者分析了长期以来争执不休的有关夫妻忠实的道德调整与法律调整的问题，得出的结论是：夫妻忠实问题既应由道德调整，也不应排除法律调整，在法律调整夫妻忠实义务时，应当充分考虑婚姻关系的私法属性，充分尊重受害当事人的合理请求。第二节作者对违反夫妻忠实义务的行为进行了分析。在现实生活中，违反夫妻忠实义务的具体情形主要表现为重婚、姘居和通奸。鉴戒配偶权理论和其他地区的相关研究成果，对违反忠实义务的行为性质应定性为侵害配偶权的行为。违反忠实义务的法律后果有二，一是构成离婚的法定理由；二是受害人有权请求停止侵害、赔礼道歉、赔偿损失（包括财产损害赔偿与精神损害赔偿）。此外，作者还探讨了行使忠实请求权的举证问题。举证难的问题不应成为反对设置夫妻忠实义务的理由，相信随着我国证据规则的不断科学化，对婚姻过错的举证责任问题将会不再是一个难题。基于上述分析，作者在第三节对夫妻忠实义务将来之立法提出了以下建议：1.设置配偶权的概念。2.将通奸作为离婚的法定理由。3.对离婚损害赔偿制度的建议有：（1）增设“通奸”作为离婚损害赔偿的法定理由；（2）将“无过错方”改为“受害方”；（3）损害赔偿既应适用于诉讼离婚，也应适用于登记离婚；（4）明示损害赔偿的范围应包括财产损害与精神损害等。