刑法中“不法侵害”评价基准比较研究——以客观说和主观说展开  

Contrast Research on the Judgment Foundation of Illegal Violation in Criminal Law——Taking the Objectivism and Subjectivism as the Argument

作　　者：张理恒[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院,重庆400031

出　　处：《西南交通大学学报（社会科学版）》2010年第5期138-141,共4页Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University(Social Sciences)

基　　金：重庆市教委人文社科研究项目(09SKN09)

摘　　要：对于"不法侵害"的判断标准,大陆法系刑法理论普遍认为,只有在不法侵害真实发生的条件下,才存在正当防卫的余地(客观说);反观英美刑法,只要防卫人有理由相信存在着不法侵害,即可进行防卫(主观说)。但客观说和主观说在处理结论上大体一致。这表明,世界两大法系的刑法理论在不法侵害的判断基准问题上具有相当程度的共通看法。As to the judgement foundation of illegal violation, Civil Criminal Law Theory usually persists that self-defense exists only when illegal violation is actually taking place （this is the so-called ＂objective theory＂ ）. However,in the Anglo-American Criminal Law, the perpetrator has the right to self- defense as long as he. firmly believes the existence of a violation of its own （ ＂subjective theory＂ ）. The two said are in roughly the same in the final conclusions ,which shows that Two Schools of criminal law theories in the world are interlinked closely with each other in the area of the judgment foundation of illegal violation：

关 键 词：正当防卫 不法侵害 假想防卫 偶然防卫 客观说 主观说 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]