集体法益之本土化形塑与内在限制  

Localization and Internal Limitation of Collective Legal Interest

作　　者：何群[1] 黄雪颖 He Qun;Huang Xueying(School of Law,Fuzhou University,Fuzhou,Fujian,350108)

机构地区：[1]福州大学法学院,福建福州350108

出　　处：《福州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第3期91-101,171,共12页Journal of Fuzhou University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

摘　　要：在刑法扩张的背景下,我国增设了诸多以保护集体法益为内容的罪名,其中,以危险驾驶罪、帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪等为代表的个罪,引起了理论和实务界的广泛讨论。然而,理论基础层面的关涉集体法益的正当性根据、界定标准等问题始终未能厘清。从本土化视角反思集体法益的相关争论:集体法益不应再与古典自由主义的法益概念过分纠缠,也不应掣肘于自由主义原子式的个人设想。集体法益能够实现对风险社会以及后疫情时代的现实观照,也与“新集体主义”价值观念存在契合之处。基于我国刑法的具体规定,借鉴二元论的观点,对集体法益进行重新分类,可分为纯正的集体法益与不纯正的集体法益;同时,对集体法益进行内在限制,设立目的正当性、内容重大性以及创设紧迫性的三重检验标准。In recent years,many crimes to protect the collective legal interest under the background of the great expansion of the criminal law.The basic issues of collective legal interest,such as legitimacy basis and definition standards,have not been clarified.This paper reflects on the relevant debate of collective legal interest from the perspective of localization and holds that:collective legal interest should no longer be too entangled with the legal interest upon classical liberalism,neither should it be hindered by the idea of liberal atomic individuals.Collective legal interest can realize the realistic care of the risk society and the post-epidemic era,and it is in line with the values of the“new collectivism”.Therefore,based on the specific provisions of the criminal law of China,and drawing on the viewpoint of dualism,collective legal interest can be classified into real collective legal interest and unreal collective legal interest.At the same time,collective legal interests should be internally limited by establishing a triple standard of test:justification of purpose,materiality of content and urgency of creation.

关 键 词：集体法益 新集体主义 纯正的集体法益 本土化 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]