对刑法中悲惨困境的批判性评论  

Critical Commentary on Tragic Dilemmas in Criminal Law

作　　者： 林嘉琪(译) 张喆锐(译) Bernd Schünemann;Lin Jiaqi;Zhang Zherui

机构地区：[1]德国慕尼黑大学法学院 [2]东南大学 [3]慕尼黑大学 [4]弗莱堡大学

出　　处：《刑法论丛》2023年第1期207-227,共21页Criminal Law Review

基　　金：教育部“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”资助

摘　　要：对于如何解决刑法中悲惨困境的讨论,不仅错综复杂而且持续超过一个世纪。只有同时满足以下三个特征,才属于刑法语境下的悲惨困境:对于存在利益冲突的双方,除了杀害其中一方之外别无选择;没有一方对困境的产生具有责任;一方的牺牲须由第三人来作决定。卡纳阿德斯之板案及营救酷刑并非真正的悲惨困境。对于真正的悲惨困境的解决,法外空间说与阻却责任的紧急避险说均不尽如人意。前者的构建会导致法上的混乱,而后者则是对刑法体系中责任概念和功能的扭曲。尽管人的生命是最高价值,且不允许对其进行纯粹数字性的权衡,但如果其注定不可挽回地在很短的时间内失去,那么它的价值将被具体地贬低。在悲惨困境的情境下,有适用防御性紧急避险的可能。The discussion on resolving tragic dilemmas in criminal law is not only intricate but has also persisted for over a century.A situation can be considered a tragic dilemma within the context of criminal law only if it simultaneously meets the following three characteristics:there is no other option but to kill one of the parties involved in the conflict of interest;neither party is responsible for the creation of the dilemma;and the sacrifice of one party must be decided by a third party.The case of the Plank of Carneades and the rescue from torture do not constitute true tragic dilemmas.The solutions to genuine tragic dilemmas,whether through the notion of an extralegal space or the justifiable defense of necessity,are both unsatisfactory.The former approach leads to legal chaos,while the latter distorts the concept and function of responsibility within the criminal law system.Although human life holds the highest value and should not be subjected to mere numerical balancing,if a life is inevitably and irretrievably lost in a veryshort period,its value is concretely diminished.In the context of a tragic dilemma,there is a possibility of applying defensive necessity.

关 键 词：悲惨困境 法外空间说 阻却责任的紧急避险 防御性紧急避险 人性尊严 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]