共同违法行为的认定标准与处断规则——兼对《治安管理处罚法》第17条之检讨  

Yardstick and Judgment Rules of Joint Illegal Activities

作　　者：熊樟林[1] 

机构地区：[1]东南大学法学院,江苏南京211189

出　　处：《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2015年第3期151-158,共8页Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究青年项目(14YJC820060):行政处罚上的有责性问题研究;司法部国家法治与法学理论研究中青年课题(14SFB30012):行政处罚上竞合问题的判断规则;江苏省高校"2011计划"区域法治发展协同创新中心之研究成果

摘　　要：我国《行政处罚法》没有共同违法的直接规定,《治安管理处罚法》第17条作了概括式补充,但无法解决实际问题。理论界效仿刑法学所建立的判断标准,非但无法为共同违法的认定和处断提供帮助,反而会造成法律上的漏洞。实际上,共同违法只是该当构成要件和满足违法性的行为,它并不一定需要有责。从比较法的经验来看,立法者往往会将不同的相对人视为统一的"单一行为人"分别处罚。正是在这一点上,诸如我国《治安管理处罚法》第17条一样将相对人区分为教唆行为、胁迫行为的文本内容,显得较为罕见,也与执法实际的复杂性存在背离,因而需要加以修正或做变通理解。There are no provisions about Joint Illegal Activities in Administrative Punishment Law of PRC. Although the Security Administration Punishment Act of PRC provides some general supplement, but cannot solve the problem in practice. Some researcher~ yardstick and judgment rules which from the criminal law theory is not only questionable, but also will result in legal loopholes. In fact, joint illegal activity is just an act which conforms the constitutive requirements and meets the illegality, nothing to do with responsibility. According to the experience of the other countries, legislators u- sually treat the different violators as a single behavior, and then punish them one by one. It is offbeat and useless to divide the different violators into solicitation and coercive acts in Article 17 of Security Administration Punishment Act of PRC, therefore, it is to be amended or flexibly interpreted.

关 键 词：行政处罚 共同违法 单一行为人 

分 类 号：DF031[政治法律—法学理论]