共犯限制从属性再审视——体系关联性祛魅与理据妥适性质疑  

Against Limited Accessoriness and Tripartite Verbrechensaufbau--Criminal Law History and Basic Theory

作　　者：徐澍 Xu Shu(Justus-Liebig University Giessen,Giessen,Germany)

机构地区：[1]吉森尤斯图斯—李比希大学,德国吉森

出　　处：《复旦学报(社会科学版)》2025年第2期167-180,共14页Fudan Journal(Social Sciences)

摘　　要：共犯限制从属性说与犯罪构成理论没有对应关系,限制从属性与极端从属性的真正分歧不在犯罪构成理论。无论采何种犯罪论体系,我国《刑法》第14条和第25条的规定都无法容纳限制从属性说。限制从属性说的理论根基也十分脆弱。无责任的不法无法实现其宣示法规范的功能预设,罪责非难也并非个别,两者的分离无法证成限制从属性。不法共犯论、限制从属性说把两种主体存在根本差异的举动强行整合,不当抬高了对无责任者举动的评价。无责任能力者只能作为法益危险源由其他法防御,共同犯罪以各行为人具备刑事责任能力为必要的成立条件。有责任者“教唆”或“帮助”无责任者实施危害行为时,有责任者是作为实行犯实施犯罪。对责任共犯论、极端从属性说的批判不适用于我国传统的共同犯罪理论。There is no corresponding relationship between the theory of limited accessoriness of complicity and structure for analyzing criminal liability.The fundamental difference between limited and extreme accessoriness is not in structure for analyzing criminal liability.Articles 14 and 25 of China Penal Code cannot accommodate the theory of limited accessoriness.The theoretical foundation of the limited subordination theory is also very fragile."Ilegality without culpability"cannot realize its functional presupposition of declaring legal norms,and the culpability is not individual.The separation of illegality and culpability cannot prove the theory of limited accessoriness.The theory of limited accessoriness forcefully integrates the actions of two subjects with fundamental differences,which leads to the disproportionate of evaluation against irresponsible persons.Irresponsible persons can only be defended as a source of danger to legal interests.For joint crimes,each actor is a subject with criminal responsibility.When someone"instigates"or"helps"an irresponsible person to commit a harmful act,he is the principal offender.The criticism of the extreme accessoriness theory does not apply to the theories of joint crime in China and the Soviet Union.

关 键 词：共同犯罪 限制从属性 四要件犯罪构成理论 阶层犯罪论体系 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]