摘要： 德国学者法布里秋斯对传统的权利能力概念进行了实质改造，系统地构建了权利能力相对性理论。这一理论的核心要点是：权利能力应是具体的、相对的，而不是抽象的、绝对的，其内容和范围取决于主体的个人品质和具体的法律规定。这样，权利能力便在不同的法律关系中呈现出不同的面貌和形态，由此催生出了部分权利能力、限制权利能力等概念。不过，权利能力相对性理论模糊了权利能力与广义行为能力之间的区分，混淆了权利能力与具体权利之间的区别，曲解了形式平等与实质平等之间的关系，因而在理论上存在诸多难以自圆其说之处。民法上的人具有“现世性”特征，胎儿和死者并没有所谓的部分权利能力。传统民法保护胎儿和死者的目的，是为了调整现世社会中的人际关系，维护生活于现世中的人的价值和尊严，以实现人的完整的民法保护。无论是从理论上看，还是从实践出发，我国均没有必要引入争论颇大且意义有限的权利能力相对性理论和部分权利能力、限制权利能力等概念。

关键词: 权利能力, 部分权利能力, 广义行为能力, 权利主体, 人格

Abstract: The German scholar Fabricius has made a substantial reform of the traditional concept of capacity for rights, and has systematically constructed the theory of relativity theory of capacity for rights.The main point of this theory is that the capacity for rights should be specific and relative, rather than abstract and absolute.What's more, the content and range of this capacity  depends on the personal qualities of subject and the specific legal provisions.In this way, capacity for rights takes on different features in different legal relationships, which gives rise to some concepts such as part of capacity for rights and limited capacity for rights.The theory of relativity of capacity for rights, however, has blurred the distinction capacity for rights and general capacity for civil conduct, has confused the difference between capacity for rights and specific rights and has distorted the relationship between formal equality and essential equality, so there are many difficult to justify.
People in civil law have the characteristics of“secular”, and the fetus and the deceased do not have part of capacity for rights.The purpose of protecting the fetus and the deceased in traditional civil law is to adjust the interpersonal relationships in the present-day society and to safeguard the value and dignity of people who living in the present world, so can we achieve complete protection in civil law.Whether in theory or in practice, there is no need to introduce the theory of relativity of capacity for rights and concepts of part of capacity for rights and limited capacity for rights, because of both of them are controversy and valueless.

Key words: Capacity for Rights, Part of Capacity for Rights, General Capacity for Civil Conduct, Subject of Right, Legal Personality.