【作者】 邱剑；

【导师】 喻名峰；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2016， 硕士

【摘要】 公开道歉的强制执行是法律和社会的共同要求。在司法界,法院判决公开道歉的案件不少,公开道歉对于维护受害人的尊严,抚慰受害人的心灵具有重要作用,同时对侵害人、社会都有一定的引导作用。关于公开道歉的执行方式,实务界采取刊载澄清事实的声明、被害人判决胜诉的启事或判决书内容的全部或一部等。但仍有学者和实务界人士质疑公开道歉强制执行的正当性和强制性。因此,正确认识公开道歉强制执行的概念以及价值,完善公开道歉强制执行的程序对于矛盾的缓和,纠纷的解决,名誉的恢复以及法律秩序的维护之意义不可小觑。本文共有四个部分组成,分别为:第一部分为公开道歉强制执行的概述,主要论述了公开道歉强制执行的概念及源始和法律、社会价值。公开道歉的强制执行是指根据当事人的要求,法院判令责任人在某个网站、某个报纸、杂志或者是其他公共媒体上面刊载的道歉声明或者公告判决书中关于赔礼道歉的主要内容。本文认为公开道歉强制执行是为了恢复被害人的社会名誉,并非要求侵权者诚挚道歉,并不涉及人格高度发展相关信念,我国宪法规定“国家尊重和保障人权”,而人权中最重要的当属于良心自由和思想自由,但任何自由都是要有限度的。公开道歉强制执行的正当性不在于其是否限制了人的自由,而在于这种限制是否合理,手段是否合法。同时强制执行公开道歉对被侵害人、侵害人及社会都有不可忽视的价值,这也是这种制度在我国赖以生存的土壤。第二部分论述公开道歉强制执行存在的问题。在司法实践中公开道歉责任强制执行方式多样化,但却明确之法律依据,标准。导致司法尺度不一,执行方式不够规范。第三部分相关国家（地区）的道歉制度比较考察,英美法系、日本及我国台湾地区而在理论上对其研究有加强的趋势,认为公开道歉强制执行是恢复名誉的适当处分,对公开道歉强制执行持支持的态度;甚至加拿大对公开道歉制定了被英美法领域视为最为全面、具体的道歉法律。第四部分对公开道歉强制执行的完善进行论述,我国现行法对公开道歉强制执行没有明确的规定,使司法实务执行方式千差万别,有损法律的权威。因此,我国应加强对公开道歉强制执行的立法。在执行措施上,法院首先应坚持强制执行与说服教育相结合的原则,尽量说服被执行人自动履行。经过多次教育无效,义务人拒绝履行可替代行为的,法院可以替代执行。对于不可替代执行,如果债务人拒不履行,其性质上已是妨害执行,执行机构可根据有关法律规定对其采取罚款、拘留等强制措施,促使其履行义务。由于间接强制的强度最大,在万不得已的情形下方可适用之。更多还原

【Abstract】 A public apology of enforcement is the common organism from legal responsibility and social aspirations. Infringer is not mandatory public apology retaliation, but a legal tort liability shall be performed, one with a humanitarian nature, rich in moral implication of building violations correction method. In the judiciary, the court many cases a public apology, a public apology for the maintenance of the dignity of the victims and restore the reputation of the victim, the victim’s soul soothe an important role. A public apology on implementation modalities, practitioners take to clarify the facts of the statement published, in whole or in part the judgment of the victim notices or judgment content and so on. But there are still scholars and practitioners have questioned the legitimacy of public apology and mandatory enforcement. Therefore, the correct understanding of the concept as well as the legitimacy of public apology enforceable perfect way to enforce a public apology for the conflict eased, dispute resolution, reputation and dignity of the law to maintain the recovery of great significance.In this paper, a total of four parts, namely:The first part is an overview of the enforcement of a public apology, and focuses on the concept of a public apology, the legitimacy of the analysis of enforcement and related theory. Public apology enforcement is defined according to the requirements of the parties, the court ordered an apology or persons responsible for the verdict announcement on a website, a newspaper, magazine or other public media above the main content published on apology. This paper argues that in order to enforce a public apology to restore the reputation of the victim’s social, not asking infringers sincere apology does not involve a high degree of personality development of related beliefs, and will not infringe on freedom of conscience. Although our law does not provide for freedom of conscience, but the provisions of our Constitution, "the state respects and safeguards human rights", but the most important human rights as part of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought, but freedom is to have any limits. A public apology to enforce its legitimacy is not whether to limit the people’s freedom, and that this restriction is reasonable, whether lawful means. Enforce public apology asking for his earlier tortfeasor tort tort consequences. When we are forced to apologize for the behavior and the reason of infringement of linked, we can understand the legitimacy of a mandatory public apology.The second part discusses a public apology to enforce the existing problems. In judicial practice, the responsibility of enforcing public apology diversification, a direct result of judicial scale varies impede effective legal instruments to maintain the solemnity, authority and finality. This section mainly for practical implementation modalities are not uniform and specific way to enforce a public apology. There are persuasion and education, alternative execution, execution, and indirect damages execution.The third part of the study were compared extraterritorial legislation, Japan and Taiwan of China believes it is appropriate to enforce a public apology to restore the reputation of punishment, a public apology to enforce supportive attitude; Department of common law countries (regions), although there is no public apology enforcement expressly provided, but the practice is still applicable to the enforcement of a public apology, but in theory, the research has strengthened the trend.The fourth part of a program to improve public apology discussed enforcement authority of the existing law to enforce a public apology for not clearly defined, so that the judicial practice of implementation vary widely, to the detriment of the law. Therefore, China should strengthen public apology to enforce legislation. On the implementation of the measures, the Court should first enforce and adhere to the principle of combining persuasion and education, try to persuade the debtor is automatically fulfilled. After several educational invalid, who refused to fulfill the obligations of alternative behavior, the court may substitute execution. For irreplaceable execution, if the debtor refuses to perform, on the nature of prejudice is already executing, implementing agencies can take their fines, detention and other coercive measures to promote its obligations under the relevant laws and regulations. Because the maximum intensity of indirect coercion, in the bottom of the case as a last resort applicable.更多还原