逆防卫的许禁之争及其适用条件分析  

On the Debate of Permitting or Banning Reverse Defense and Its Applicable Conditions

作　　者：魏汉涛[1] 

机构地区：[1]昆明理工大学法学院,云南昆明650500

出　　处：《昆明理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2014年第3期32-38,共7页Journal of Kunming University of Science and Technology(Social Sciences)

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究西部和边疆地区青年基金项目"刑法从宽制度研究"(12XJC820001);昆明理工大学引进人才项目"司法理性中的民愤"(KKSY201224012)

摘　　要：原不当侵害人对不当防卫能否进行逆防卫,理论上存在赞成与反对两种观点。当面临生命或重大健康安全时人会本能地反击,这是人性的表面,国外立法和我国正当防卫制度都没有否定原不法侵害人的逆防卫权。着眼于加害与被害的关系,否定逆防卫人的逆防卫权有脱离现实之嫌。但逆防卫毕竟是一种特殊的防卫,如果按正当防卫的一般条件要求逆防卫人,不利于原防卫人权利的保护,因而还必须为其设置一些特殊的限制条件。从逆防卫的特殊性出发,除满足正当防卫的一般条件外,逆防卫的成立还要满足四个条件:一是不当防卫必须严重危及人身安全;二是严重危及人身安全的不当防卫非常紧迫;三是对严重危及人身安全的暴力犯罪不允许进行逆防卫;四是逆防卫人必须履行躲避义务。There are two theoretically opposite views on whether the original infringer could conduct inverse defense against the defenders or not. From the point of view of human rights protection, inverse defense has no legal basis. Focusing on the interaction between the victim and the infringer, we cannot deny inverse defense. However, inverse defense is, after all, a special kind of defense. If we inquire inverse defense according to the general conditions of self-defense, it is not conducive to protect the rights of victims. Therefore, we must set more stringent applicable conditions for inverse defense. Except from meeting the general conditions of self-de-fense, inverse defense must meet three conditions as follows：first, the improper defense must seriously jeopard-ize personal safety;second, the serious threat to personal safety is very urgent;third, it is not allowed that the violent crimes seriously endanger the personal safety against the defense;fourth, the original infringer must ful-fill the obligations of escaping.

关 键 词：逆防卫 许禁之争 严重危及安全 紧迫性 躲避义务 

分 类 号：D914.34[政治法律—刑法学]