自招危险行为人正当防卫权资格保有的刑法释疑  

A Legal Interpretation of Necessity of Justifiable Defense in Self-induced Danger

作　　者：薛铁成 XUE Tiecheng(Department of Mechanical Engineering,Qingdao Huanghai University,Qingdao Shandong,266427,China)

机构地区：[1]青岛黄海学院机电工程学院,山东青岛266427

出　　处：《西南石油大学学报（社会科学版）》2018年第6期69-77,共9页Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Social Sciences Edition)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目"法治视野下的刑事合议庭研究"(15XFX011)

摘　　要：自招危险的发生以自招危险行为人的"挑唆"为前提,其对危险的发生存在过错。正当防卫是防卫行为人基于面临紧迫危险时而享有保卫自己或他人法益免受侵害的自然权利。当前,我国刑法理论"否认自招危险情形下自招危险行为人享有当然防卫权,但是承认紧急避险"。通说不允许自招危险行为人对自招危险行为相对人实施的行为实施防卫行为,却允许对无辜第三人的法益实施侵害之否定自招危险情形下自招危险行为人成立正当防卫之结论存在瑕疵;同时,因自招危险行为本身之过错而否定之后正当防卫成立的主客观要件之逻辑存疑。承认自招危险情形下自招危险行为人享有正当防卫权,不仅可以扭转正当防卫立法谨慎的态势和司法适用的"道德洁癖",而且可以平衡权利资格保有、责任分担和严格遵循刑法之因果关系,同时符合权利本位观念。The perpetrator of self-induced danger has fault in provoking the danger while justifiable defence refers to a person’s right to stop an unlawful infringement for his own or another person’s right.The current criminal law in China denies the right to justifiable defence in self-induced danger but permits act of recue.Acknowledging self-defence in self-induced danger contributes to prevent the over-prudence in legislation and moral-hygiene in law enforcement,to balance qualification of right and sharing of liability,and to adhere to the causal relationships in criminal law.

关 键 词：自招危险 挑唆防卫 正当防卫 紧迫性 相当性 

分 类 号：DF611[政治法律—刑法学]