法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 溯及既往禁止與轉型正義-以東德邊境守衛射殺案為例(The Principle of Non-retroactivity and Transitional Justice: Taking the Case of Marksmen on the Berlin Wall as an Example)
編著譯者: 薛智仁
出版日期: 2019.09
刊登出處: 台灣/中研院法學期刊第 25 期 /131-204 頁
頁  數: 49 點閱次數: 1657
下載點數: 196 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 薛智仁
關 鍵 詞: 邊境守衛射殺案溯及既往禁止原則轉型正義阻卻違法事由追訴時效賴特布魯赫公式
中文摘要: 新興民主國家如何處置轉型前之獨裁政權侵害人權的犯行,是轉型正義的重大議題。如果追究加害者侵害人權的刑責,依行為時的法律,該行為卻不成立犯罪或追訴時效已完成,處罰該行為將可能牴觸溯及既往之禁止。在採取追究加害者刑責政策的德國,法院於兩德統一後的邊境守衛射殺案,藉助賴特布魯赫公式與友善人權的解釋否定東德之阻卻違法事由效力,形式上維持溯及既往禁止的絕對效力,實質上卻達成回溯處罰守衛射殺行為的效果。本文透過分析本案的相關判決,指出德國法院此種「隱藏性溯及既往」的作法牴觸溯及既往禁止,並主張應該交由立法者在憲法明訂容許溯及既往之例外條款。至於那些依行為時法律已屬違法的射殺行為,德國立法者延長特定犯罪之追訴期間、新增追訴時效停止或中斷等規定,都是事後提升對犯罪之不法評價,一律違反溯及既往禁止。
英文關鍵詞: marksman on Berlin Wallprinciple of non-retroactivitytransitional justiceaffirmative defenselimitation of prosecutionRadbruch formula
英文摘要: How a newly democratic government deals with the infringement of human rights under dictatorship before the transition is an important issue for transitional justice. If the democratic government decides to prosecute criminal acts not subject to penalty according to the law at the time of their commission or the statute of limitations for prosecution has expired, the punishment might violate the principle of non-retroactivity. The German government took the policy of prosecuting criminal acts comprehensively. After the German reunification, courts in the case of marksmen on the Berlin Wall, adopting the Radbruch formula and the interpretation in favor of human rights, denied the affirmative defense provided in the German Democratic Republic. While this upheld the absolute validity of non-retroactivity formally, it actually punished the soldiers retroactively. This article will analyze those judgments and indicate that this kind of hidden retroactivity violates the principle of non-retroactivity, and that legislating an exceptional clause permitting retroactive punishment in the constitution is a better method. Moreover, Germany takes the measures of prolonging the statute of limitations of for prosecution in specific types of crimes, adding provisions stopping or interrupting the statute of limitations to prosecute the shooting acts, which were illegal in accordance with the law at the time of their commission. However, those methods all violate non-retroactivity because they promote illegal evaluation afterward. It can be seen that there is a severe challenge to non-retroactivity when it comes to transitional justice.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、德國經驗:邊境守衛射殺案
一、案件事實
二、兩德統一條約之法律框架
三、射殺行為之違法性
四、射殺行為之追訴時效
參、阻卻違法事由與溯及既往禁止原則
一、阻卻違法事由適用罪刑法定原則
二、重新詮釋東德阻卻違法事由係「隱藏性之溯及既往」
三、「隱藏性之溯及既往」之合憲性
四、小結
肆、追訴時效與溯及既往禁止原則
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列