法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 阻卻不法之緊急避難:法理基礎、適用範圍與利益權衡標準(Affirmative Defense of Necessity: Legal Foundations, Scope of Application and Criterion of Balance of Interests)
編著譯者: 薛智仁
出版日期: 2019.09
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 48 卷 第 3 期 /1147-1221 頁
頁  數: 75 點閱次數: 2600
下載點數: 300 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺灣大學法律學院
關 鍵 詞: 緊急避難防禦性緊急避難攻擊性緊急避難優越利益原則社會連帶義務妨害人責任正當防衛死亡協助殺人行為
中文摘要: 通說認為刑法第 24 條之緊急避難是阻卻不法事由,其理論根據在於優越利益原則。此一效益主義觀點將個人視為國家或社會利益的載具,不符合法秩序的個人自主原則。不僅如此,這個觀點也造成緊急避難和其他阻卻不法事由的適用關係模糊,以及緊急避難的利益權衡標準不明確。因此,本文從個人自主原則出發,主張攻擊性緊急避難和防禦性緊急避難是兩種不同的緊急權限,前者的法理基礎在於被避難人的社會連帶義務,後者的法理基礎則是結合妨害人責任及避難人的社會連帶義務。本文的主張有助於釐清緊急避難的適用範圍及其利益權衡標準。首先,由於緊急避難的法理基礎在於社會連帶義務,故僅適用於人際的利益衝突,至於個人內部的利益衝突,則應適用被害人(推測)承諾的阻卻不法事由。其次,緊急避難的利益權衡標準必須類型化,攻擊性緊急避難適用重大優越標準,防禦性緊急避難僅適用合乎比例標準,在極端情形下,殺人行為可能適用防禦性緊急避難而合法化。上述論點不僅可以作為現行刑法第 24 條之適用方針,而且顯示立法政策上應該分別規定攻擊性和防禦性緊急避難。
英文關鍵詞: Necessitydefensive necessityaggressive necessitythe principle of prevalent interestssolidarity obligationthe responsibility of disturberjustifiable defenseeuthanasiaoffense of homicide
英文摘要: The recognized law theory based on the principle of prevalent interests takes article 24 of the criminal law as an affirmative defense. It starts off utilitarianism, views individuals as the vehicle of country or society, which doesn’t conform to the principle of individual autonomy. Not only that, this concept also blurred necessity and other affirmative defenses, and makes the criterion of balance of interests indeterminate. Therefore, this article starts off the principle of individual autonomy, distinguishes aggressive and defensive necessity. Aggressive necessity based on the principle of solidarity obligation and defensive necessity combined the responsibility of disturber and solidarity obligation.This article will clear the application scope of necessity and the criterion of balance of interests. First of all, the legal foundation of necessity is social solidarity obligation, so it only applies to the interpersonal interests conflict. As for the conflicts of the personal interior, should apply to the affirmative defense of commitment of the victim. On these grounds, in the cases of arbitrary medical treatment and preventing others to suicide can only apply to the affirmative defense of commitment of the victim, but in the cases of assisting in suiciding, if the purpose of article 275 of the criminal law is the public interest of forbidding murder, as this public interest conflicts with the patient's interest of reducing the pain, in this situation, there is a possibility to apply to an affirmative defense. Secondly, criterion of balance of interests of necessity should be classified. The aggressive necessity applies to the substantial prevalent criterion, and defensive necessity only applies to proportional criterion. In extreme cases, a homicidal act can be legalized by applying to the defensive necessity. The above points are not only the guidelines of article 24 of the criminal law but also show that we should legislate the aggressive and defensive necessity separately.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、緊急避難之法理基礎
一、攻擊性/防禦性緊急避難之區分必要性
二、攻擊性緊急避難之法理基礎
三、防禦性緊急避難之法理基礎
四、小結
參、緊急避難與(推測)承諾之適用關係
一、基本原則
二、邊界案例
三、小結
肆、緊急避難之利益權衡標準
一、法理基礎之引導作用
二、差異化之利益權衡標準
三、殺人行為與緊急避難
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列