义务冲突在犯罪论体系中的定位及本土化展开  

作　　者：申屠晓莉 

机构地区：[1]江苏大学法学院

出　　处：《法治现代化研究》2024年第5期136-148,共13页Law and Modernization

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目“面向轻罪治理的刑事制裁体系重构问题研究”(23BFX131)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：义务冲突在犯罪论体系中的定位本质上是对义务冲突何以排除犯罪的回答。四要件犯罪论体系将义务冲突认定为“排除社会危害性的行为”,但这一属性并没有赋予义务冲突具有实质意义的体系位置。阶层理论中的义务冲突体系定位基于不同的理论基础和论证逻辑,存在构成要件排除说、违法阻却说和责任阻却说。构成要件排除说忽略了多个法益需要保护的客观情况,责任阻却说将行为人从一个“救助者”变成“侵害者”,赋予第三人防卫权,违背法秩序本意,只有将义务冲突置于违法性层面考察才符合法益保护的最终目的,包括义务冲突在内的所有超法规出罪事由的本土化发展,应在理论上关注出罪事由的法理根据,在实践中正视出罪事由的辩护主张,依托本土案例推进义务冲突理论的体系构建。The problem of the positioning of obligation conflict in criminal law is essentially an answer to how obligation conflict can eliminate crime.The four-element theory of crime identifies conflict of obligations as“behavior that excludes social harm”,but this attribute does not grant it a substantively meaningful position within the system.In tiered theories,the orientation of the obligation conflict is based on different theoretical bases and argumentation logic.The prevailing theories are those of exclusion of constituent elements,preclude of illegality and deterrence of responsibility.The theory of constituent elements exclusion overlooks the objective circumstances where multiple legal interests need protection.On the other hand,responsibility prevention transforms the actor from a“rescuer”to a“wrongdoer”,granting a third party the right of defense,which contradicts the original intention of legal order.Thus,examining conflicts of duties on the level of legality aligns more with the ultimate goal of protecting legal interests.The localization development of all extra-legal reasons for crime,including obligation conflicts,should theoretically focus on the jurisprudential basis for these reasons and practically address the advocacy of these reasons for crime,advancing the local theoretical construction of obligation conflict theory based on the practical cases.

关 键 词：义务冲突 体系定位 违法阻却 出罪根据 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]