命名自由之研究

Abstract

中文摘要 人性尊嚴之確保係憲法最高價值所在，也是做為一個人所當然具有之地位與尊嚴，此不僅實證化於德國基本法開宗明義之第一條首句，也同時為我國釋憲實務所肯認；而透過姓名的表彰，我們得以從抽象的人類概念中解放，成為獨一無二的個體，換言之，姓名權與其他同為人格權範疇之生命、身體、健康、自由及隱私等權利，都是基於人性尊嚴與個人主體性之維護及人格自由發展之完整，以確保自由民主憲政秩序之核心價值。 論人格權，尤其姓名權，必定及於司法院釋字第399號解釋。惟此號解釋中應為憲法第二十二條所保障者究係「姓名權」或「命名自由」？卻費人思緒；二者有何關聯？如「命名自由」是否為「姓名權」之權能等是；又「命名自由」其義為何？若未將之釐清，恐無法檢視本解釋揭示之意旨是否獲得落實，故本文乃欲對此二者進行區辨，並及於有關之概念「命名權」等研究，以盡可能描繪出命名自由之輪廓，進而確立其於基本權利譜系中之定位，與社會秩序、公共利益間之關係，及其應有保障與應備功能；並探究對於「姓氏」、「名字」其管理之原則及應為何等立法限制，方能回應釋字第399號解釋之意旨。 對於命名自由保障之原理原則，本文認為應置重於姓名之自己決定。並藉由研究所得，確認釋字第399號解釋所保障者，為命名自由，亦試擬其定義。最後擬就法制面及實務面檢討命名自由於我國之實踐。 經由本文之彙整，姓名法制應包含命名自由及姓名權之規範二大重點，前者針對姓名之決定與變更，後者則針對姓名之使用。有關姓名權之規定首見於民法，惟「命名自由」除少數國家之民法加以規定外，見諸明文者多附屬於出生登記或親權有關之規定，亦鮮有對之專為討論者。本文認為，「命名自由」為人格發展自由之一部，為個人人格尊重，人性尊嚴確保之重要成分，因之，為使之得以落實並發揮其功能，應當具有實體與程序面之保障措施，故此，應檢視有關法規並調整以達成此一目的，尤其是目前法制中對於「姓名之自己決定」有所不足或未能實踐之部分，方能建構完整且周全之姓名法制，為本文所欲獲致之最大成果。 至於本文之研究方法採用法學研究方法；其實際執行方式，則使用文獻分析法、比較立法例分析法及案例分析法進行。 關鍵詞：命名自由、命名權、姓名權、人格權、姓名法制、人性尊嚴、人格發展自由

Abstract The assurance of the human dignity is the supreme value of the Constitutional Law, as well as an inevitable status and moral integrity as human being. This is materialized in the first sentence of Article 1 of German Fundamental Law, and also confirmed by the practice of Constitution interpretation of this country. By way of differential names, we can thus be identified from abstract concept “human beings” and, become a unique individuality. In another words, the right to denominate as well as the right of living, body, health, freedom and privacy included in the right of moral integrity are the core value to assure the democratic constitutional system which based on human dignity, protection of individuality and integrity development.

To have a canvass on the right of moral integrity, especially the right to denominate, the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 399 has to be mentioned. However, it is fuzzy that whether “the right of the name” or “the freedom of naming” is under protection of Article 22 of the Constitutional Law? Furthermore, is there any relation between both of them? For example, is “the freedom of naming” included in “the right of the name”? What’s the precise meaning of “the freedom of naming”? Therefore, we can not examine whether the intention of such interpretation is put into effect if such terms are not clarified. This thesis statement is trying to distinguish the both terms above mentioned, is Reaching to concept of “the right of naming” , too, and depict the outline of the freedom of naming as possible. Further, to locate its status under fundamental rights, and the relationship among it and social orders and public benefits, and its protection and functions required. In addition, to have a discuss on management principles and legislation limits about “Family Names” and “Last Names” to respond the intention of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 399. This thesis statement claims that the principle of protection on the freedom of denomination should be focused on self discretion. By means of the result of the research, I hereby confirmed that the object under protection of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 399 is the freedom of naming, and tried to define it. Eventually, trying to review the practice of the freedom of naming in this country based on the aspects of legal system and judicial practice. By way of compiling of this thesis statement, the legal system of the name should include both emphasis about the freedom of naming and the right of the name. The former is directed against the decision and change of names, the latter against the use of names.The right of the name is first prescribed in the Civil Code of R.O.C., nevertheless, “the freedom of naming” in written is mostly attached in relevant regulations and ordinance of birth registration and Parents’ rights but seldom prescribed in Civil Code except few countries, and discussions on it is rare. This thesis statement claims that “the freedom of naming” is a part of freedom of personality development, and major factor to assure the self respect of individual and human dignity. Therefore, the substantial and procedural protection measurements are required to put it into practice and fulfill its function. The relevant regulations and ordinance should be examined and adjusted to achieve this goal, especially on the insufficient or unpracticed part in applicable Law about “names under self discretion” to build up an integral and complete system, to become the ultimate result of this thesis statement. As regard to the research method of this thesis statement is jurisprudence research; the practical execution includes documentation analysis, legislation comparison analysis and case law analysis. Keywords the freedom of naming, the right of naming, the right of the name, the right of moral integrity, legal system of the name, human dignity, the freedom of personality development