防卫紧迫性判断标准的刑法教义学诠释  

Interpretation of the Defense Urgency Judgment Criterion in Dogmatics of Criminal Law

作　　者：张宝[1] Zhang Bao

机构地区：[1]河南科技大学法学院

出　　处：《中州学刊》2018年第5期56-63,共8页Academic Journal of Zhongzhou

基　　金：中国法学会课题"正当防卫司法判断机制完善研究"[CLS(2017)D49]

摘　　要：围绕防卫紧迫性的判断标准,域外刑法理论长期存在主观标准说与客观标准说两种互相对立的观点,我国刑法理论中虽然有客观主观说、区分说等观点,但事后判断标准说牢固地占据主流地位并成为指导司法实践的基本准则。事后判断标准说并不完美,相反,司法实践中对正当防卫的认定偏差日益严重,该说难辞其咎。鉴于此,有必要从判断时间、判断对象、判断立场等层面重新检视防卫紧迫性的判断标准,坚持以行为时的全部客观事实为基础进行一般人判断。唯有如此,才能真正厘清不法侵害是否正在发生或迫在眉睫。About the judgment criterion of the defense urgency,there are two opposing views in the theory of extraterritorial criminal law for a long time,subjective standard theory and objective standard. Although there are objectivism,subjectivism and distinction theory in China’s criminal law in theory,the criterion of post judgment firmly occupies the dominant position and becomes the basic criterion to guide judicial practice. However,this criterion is not flawless. On the contrary,the deviation of the judicial cognizance of justifiable defense in our country is growing larger,which in large part leads to the detachment between judicial judgment of self defense and public recognition. Therefore,it is necessary to review the judgment criterion of the urgency of defense from multiple angles,including time,object,and standpoint,and insist on the general judgment on the basis of all the objective facts of the behavior. Only in this way can we truly clarify whether illegal infringement is happening or imminent.

关 键 词：正当防卫 防卫过当 防卫紧迫性 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]