论作为特权的正当化事由  

On the Justification of Privileges as Justifiable Causes

作　　者：马乐 Ma Le(Law School of Dalian Maritime University,Dalian,Liaoning,116026)

机构地区：[1]大连海事大学法学院,辽宁大连116026

出　　处：《山东警察学院学报》2024年第6期5-11,共7页Journal of Shandong Police College

基　　金：国家社科基金项目“正当化事由的体系性研究”(项目编号:18BFX107);辽宁省社科基金项目“通过网络支付平台非法获取他人财产行为的罪名适用研究”(项目编号:L22A FX002)的研究成果。

摘　　要：对于反思正当化事由的法理依据和规范属性而言,霍菲尔德对权利与特权的区分具有不可忽视的理论价值。正当化事由具有多重规范属性,特殊情形下的正当化事由只赋予行为人特权,而非权利。当今刑法教义学关于紧急避险、正当防卫、自杀等议题的讨论存在思维误区,关于行为的正当性评价,刑法学通说坚持的不相容命题和普适性命题不能成立。在某些情形下,相互冲突的行为可能同时被评价为正当。在生命冲突的情形中,利益冲突的双方都有诉诸避险或防卫的特权,第三人并无协助或干预的权利。在特殊情形下,个人为挽救无辜者生命有实施酷刑的特权,但第三人和公权力同样有阻止酷刑的权利。由于自杀只是特权,承认自杀自由与处罚协助自杀之间并无矛盾。与此同时,他人有阻止自杀的特权。The distinction made by Hohfeld between rights and privileges holds significant theoretical value for reflecting on the legal basis and normative attributes of justifications.Justifications possess multiple normative characteristics;under specific circumstances,they confer privileges rather than rights to the actor.Current discussions in criminal law doctrine regarding urgent danger prevention,justifiable defense,and suicide contain conceptual misunderstandings.The incompatible and universal propositions upheld by mainstream criminal law regarding the legitimacy of actions cannot be sustained.In certain situations,conflicting actions may simultaneously be deemed justifiable.In life-threatening conflicts,both parties in the interest conflict possess the privilege to invoke emergency defense,while third parties lack the right to assist or intervene.In exceptional cases,individuals may have the privilege to inflict torture to save innocent lives,yet third parties and public authorities retain the right to prevent such torture.Since suicide is merely a privilege,there is no contradiction between recognizing the freedom to commit suicide and penalizing assistance in suicide.Concurrently,others possess the privilege to prevent suicide.

关 键 词：特权 正当防卫 紧急避险 酷刑营救 自杀 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]