论污染环境罪的罪过形式  

On the Offence Form of Environmental Pollution Crime

作　　者：胡剑波[1] 

机构地区：[1]温州大学,浙江温州325035

出　　处：《太平洋学报》2012年第10期55-61,共7页Pacific Journal

基　　金：温州文化研究工程课题"风险社会下重大环境事故的刑法问题研究--以温州为例"(Wyk10025);中共浙江省委政法委员会;浙江省法学会法学研究重点课题<风险刑法视阈下海洋生态危机的应对>(2012NA03);温州市法学会法学研究课题<风险刑法视阈下海洋污染的防范与控制>

摘　　要：《刑法修正案(八)》第46条新确立了污染环境罪,但并未明确其罪行形式,因此,理论上便存在"双重罪行说"和"过失说"之争。本文认为,这两种观点均不可采信,一方面,如果缺乏法律文理根据,则既不能认为某种犯罪同时包括故意与过失,也不能认为该罪属于过失犯;另一方面,既然成立本罪不以侵害他人生命、身体为必要,也就表明将其理解为过失犯的实质根据并不存在。此外,倘若将本罪理解为过失犯,便会导致过失严重污染环境的行为成立犯罪而部分故意严重污染环境的行为却只能宣告无罪的现象,这显然有悖于责任主义原理。质言之,本罪应属故意犯罪。The article 46 of The Eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People＇ s Republic of China, has formulated a new crime of environmental pollution, but the crime＇ s offence form has not been clarified, so opin- ions diversified. Some think that the crime has double offence forms, but some object that the crime is a negli- gent one. However, none of the above two ideas are appropriate. Firstly, if devoid of definitional justification in the language of related article, a crime has neither double offence forms nor is a negligent one. Secondly, the ac- tual basis for regarding the crime as a negligent one does not exist because the infringing of life or body is not necessary for committing the crime. Thirdly, regarding the crime as a negligent one can give rise to an apparent injustice namely partial negligent acts will be guilty and rather the corresponding intentional acts won＇ t be guilt- y. It is evidently in contradiction with the sense of responsibility. In a word, the crime of environmental pollution should be an intentional one.

关 键 词：污染环境罪 罪行形式 故意犯罪 过失犯罪 

分 类 号：D912.6[政治法律—环境与资源保护法学]