论野生动物资源犯罪中的拟制性财产权利  

The Fictitious Property Rights in Wildlife Resource Crimes

作　　者：焦艳鹏 Jiao Yanpeng

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学中国环境犯罪治理研究院,上海200042

出　　处：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2025年第2期115-128,共14页Science of Law:Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：国家社科基金重大项目(19ZDA161)“污染环境犯罪多元治理机制研究”;国家社科基金重点项目(19AFX008)“面向生态文明视建设的我国污染环境犯罪治理机制研究”。

摘　　要：以野生动物的种类和数量作为野生动物资源犯罪司法裁量主要测量标准饱受争议。2022年施行的新版司法解释将破坏野生动物资源的价值数额作为主要司法裁量标准具有时代进步性。但需注意,不宜将野生动物资源的“价值”作为民法上的财产或财产权,而应将其作为一种以生态法益评价为主的具有工具性的拟制性财产权利。与作为实质法益的生态法益相比,拟制性财产权利仅具有测量目的。在野生动物资源犯罪的司法裁量中,应坚持将生态法益作为实质法益,继续发展非传统法益的测量技术,充分挖掘可实质评价野生动物“价值”的构成要素。在野生动物资源犯罪等生态环境犯罪判断中应积极倡导综合裁量,努力以实质法益观为价值导向,大力加强该类犯罪中的法益识别、法益测量与法益衡量,积极促进案件的客观公正处理,努力让人民群众在每一个司法案件中感受到公平正义。Using the types and quantities of wild animals as the primary criteria for judicial discretion in wildlife resource crimes has been a subject of controversy.The updated judicial interpretation implemented in 2022 adopts the value of destroyed wildlife resources as the primary standard for judicial discretion,representing a significant advancement.However,it should be noted that the“value”of wildlife resources cannot be regarded as a property right under civil law but rather as fictitious property rights with ecological legal interest evaluation.Compared to ecological legal interests,which are substantive in nature,fictitious property rights possess only formal significance.In the judicial discretion of wildlife resource crimes,ecological legal interests should remain the cornerstone of substantive legal interests.Techniques for measuring legal interests should be further developed to better define and explore the constituent elements of wildlife“value”.A comprehensive approach to judicial discretion should be encouraged,guided by the principles of substantive legal interests.Efforts to identify,quantify,and assess legal interests in such crimes should be enhanced to ensure cases are handled objectively and fairly.

关 键 词：野生动物资源 动物资源犯罪 拟制性财产权利 法益识别 生态法益 

分 类 号：D924.36[政治法律—刑法学]