我国《刑法》第29条第2款的合宪性解释  

Interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of Criminal Law of China from the perspective of Constitutionality

作　　者：何庆仁 He Qingren

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院大学法学院,北京102488

出　　处：《政治与法律》2021年第8期85-96,共12页Political Science and Law

基　　金：2019年度教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目“共同犯罪本质的规范理解研究”(项目编号:19YJA820014)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：刑法领域内的合宪性解释已经成为刑法学与宪法学在新时代的共同追求,但是刑法学的关注尚停留于理念宣导,宪法学的关注则主要以分则具体问题为中心,刑法教义学本身很少接受合宪性检视。实际上,合宪性检视对刑法教义学的合理化与合法化均具有重要意义。我国《刑法》第29条第2款规定的教唆犯独立性与从属性之争,在教义学上陷入了多极对峙、自说自话或者将立法者作为挡箭牌的诸多困境。如果引入合宪性的价值视角重新审视围绕该款规定的各种解释结论,可以发现宪法中平等原则和比例原则的指导意义,有助于疏解流于智识之争的该学理僵局。刑法教义学应当自觉接受合宪性检视,贯彻宪法价值,以完善和发展自己的教义学知识体系。The interpretation from the perspective of constitutionality in the field of criminal law has become a common pursuit of sciences of criminal law and constitutional law in the new era,but the focus of the science of criminal law is still limited to conceptual guidance and the focus of the science of constitutional law is mainly on concrete issues of the Specific Part,and the criminal law dogmatics itself is rarely subject to constitutionality examination.In fact,constitutionality examination is important for the rationalization and legitimization of criminal law dogmatics.The debate over the independence or subordination of the instigation under Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Criminal Law has led to a number of predicaments including multi-polar confrontation,unconvicing argument or the use of the legislator as a shield.If various interpretative conclusions concerning this provision are re-examined by introducing the value perspective of constitutionality,it may be found that the guiding significance of principles of equality and proportionality in the constitutional law help resolve such academic deadlock which has become an intellectual dispute.The criminal law dogmatics should voluntarily undergo constitutionality examination and embody constitutional values in order to improve and develop the doctrinal knowledge system of its own.

关 键 词：教唆犯独立性 教唆犯从属性 合宪性解释 平等原则 比例原则 

分 类 号：DF61[政治法律—刑法学]