紧急避险的体系再定位研究  

Research on the Repositioning of Emergency Action System

作　　者：方军[1] FANG Jun(Law School of China University of Social Science Academy,Beijing 100089,China)

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院大学法学院,北京100089

出　　处：《现代法学》2018年第2期132-146,共15页Modern Law Science

基　　金：中国青年政治学院青年教师学术创新计划支持项目(189100138)

摘　　要：无论是功利主义思想还是社会连带主义,均无法合理地说明紧急避险的正当性基础。功利主义漠视个人的主体价值,社会连带思想无法清楚切割道德义务与法义务,二者均无法整合在以保护个人自由为宗旨的刑法秩序中。攻击性紧急避险不应当定位在阻却违法性阶层,而应视具体情境审查是否具有成立宽恕(减免)罪责的可能,这与我国《刑法》第21条的规定并不矛盾。将攻击性紧急避险定位于罪责阶层的实益在于:受法益侵害的无辜第三人没有必须消极忍受被攻击的义务,而是可以对紧急避险者进行正当防卫;唆使或帮助他人实施紧急避险属于参与他人的不法行为,恶意唆使与帮助者具有可罚性;避险者必须对于由避险行为引起的被避险者的法益危险及时进行救助,否则要承担不作为的责任。Both utilitarianism and Solidarism,were unable to reasonably explain the legitimacy foundation of emergency actions.Utilitarianism disregards for the main body of personal value,meanwhile social joint thoughts cannot clearly incise the moral obligation and the legal duty,both of them cannot be integrated in the Criminal Law order which aims to protect the personal freedom.Aggressive emergency action should not be positioned in the obstruction of illegality,but should examine whether has set up the possibility of forgiveness(relief)guilt according to specific situation,which does not conflict with the provisions of Article 21 of the Criminal Law in our country.The benefit of positioning aggressive emergency action in the responsibility for an offense class is:The innocent third party whose legal interest is violated is under no obligation to bear the attacked duty negatively,but can defend for himself to emergency actions;Abetting or helping others to implement emergency actions belongs to participation in the legal actions of others,malicious instigator and helper should be punished;Hedger must rescue the innocent third party in time,otherwise he should assume the responsibility of inaction.

关 键 词：攻击性紧急避险 功利主义 社会连带主义 宽恕罪责事由 正当防卫 

分 类 号：DF61[政治法律—刑法学]