在当今的互联网大时代下，私人生活的界限被不断拓展延伸，私人生活安宁受到侵扰的概率越来越高，为维护个人的私人生活安宁，2020年通过的《民法典》正式在隐私权当中规定了私人生活安宁。 在私人生活安宁没有被民法典纳入隐私权的范围之前，其司法保护面临诸多障碍，一是之前法律规范的缺位，以致法院被迫将私人生活安宁转嫁到其他法律制度下进行保护，比如以名誉权、相邻关系以及健康权等制度来对其保护，以此来避免无法可依的处境。甚至部分法院以法律中没有规定为依据，驳回受害人的诉请。二是私人生活安宁的具体内容不够明确，未明确界定其概念、特征以及内涵和外延，也没有厘清私人生活安宁与隐私权的关系。三是私人生活安宁没有形成统一的司法判决规范，经常出现相同案件却有着大为不同的判决的情况。四是保护的现实困境还在于侵害私人生活安宁的构成要件和侵权责任不明确。 本文的中心是切实加强私人生活安宁的司法保护，运用文献研究法、案例分析法，同时运用综合分析法，在通过对大量有关私人生活安宁典型案例以及诸多学者研究成果的综合研究分析，明确界定了私人生活安宁的概念、特征以及内涵和外延，厘清私人生活安宁与隐私权的关系，讨论侵害私人生活安宁的构成要件和侵权责任，以便能够赋予其更加积极有效的保护。最后得出：一是讨论了侵害私人生活安宁的构成要件。将侵害私人生活安宁的行为分为四大类型。侵害私人生活安宁应适用过错责任原则并讨论了过错的认定。因果关系方面应适用相当因果关系，即只要求判断原因事实与损害结果之间在通常情形下存在可能性。损害结果只要实质影响私人生活安宁，造成了精神上的不安、痛苦、烦躁或者愤怒等不良情绪，就产生了损害结果。讨论了侵害私人生活安宁的免责事由中的两项，即法律另有规定和权利人明确同意，明确了其具体含义。二是讨论了侵害私人生活安宁的侵权责任承担方式。应适用侵害与损害相区别的二元保护路径，只有区别好侵害与损害，才能正确适用人格权请求权和侵权损害赔偿请求权，为私人生活安宁的保护寻找适当的路径。同时要注意私人生活安宁侵权责任中的利益平衡。

In today's Internet era, the boundaries of private life are widening continuously, and the possibility of intruding private life is more and more likely to be disturbed. In order to maintain the tranquility of private life, the Third Session of the 13th National People's Congress adopted the Civil Code on May 28, 2020, formally stipulating the tranquility of private life and bringing it into the protection of the right of privacy.Before incorporating the tranquility of private life into the right of privacy, the judicial protection of private life is faced with many obstacles. First, the absence of the former legal norms makes the court be forced to transfer the tranquility of private life to other legal systems, such as the right of reputation, neighboring relations and the right of health, so as to avoid the situation that the tranquility of private life cannot be protected. In reality, some courts reject the victim's claim on the grounds that there is no provision for the tranquility of private life in the law. Secondly, the content of the tranquility of private life is not clear enough, the concept, characteristics, connotation and extension of the tranquility of private life are not clearly defined, and the relationship between the tranquility of private life and the right to privacy is not clear enough. Different scholars have different views on the tranquility of private life, which hinders the process of its protection. Third, before the private life tranquility was brought into the right of privacy, the private life tranquility did not form a unified judicial rules, which led to the same type of cases, often "different judgments in the same case" situation. Fourth, the practical dilemma of private life protection lies in the ambiguity of the constituent requirements and the liability of tort, which also seriously affects the relief. Based on the analysis of a large number of typical cases of private life and the achievements of many scholars, this paper clearly defines the concept, characteristics, connotation and denotation of private life, clarifies the relationship between private life and the right to privacy, and discusses the elements and remedies of violation of private life. Finally: First, it discusses the constituent requirements of the tranquility of private life. There are four types of violations against the tranquility of private residence, the tranquility of private space other than private residence, the tranquility of daily life, and the tranquility of communication. The principle of fault liability should be applied to the tranquility of private life, and the determination of fault is discussed. In the aspect of causation, considerable causation is applied to judge the causation of violation against the tranquility of private life, that is to say, the possibility of the existence of the probabilities between the fact of cause and the consequence of damage. Damage results occur when it materially affects the tranquility of private life, resulting in mental uneasiness, pain, irritability or anger. It also discusses the two items of the tranquility of private life, that is, the law stipulates otherwise and the consent of the obligee. Second, it discusses the way of the tranquility of private life. The dual protection path that distinguishes infringement from damage shall be adopted. Only by distinguishing infringement from damage can the right to claim for personal right and the right to claim for damages be correctly applied so as to find a proper path for the protection of the tranquility of private life. At the same time, we should pay attention to the balance of private life, which is very important to resolve the conflict between the tranquility of private life and other interests.