法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 不法挑唆與正當防衛(Illegal Provocation and the Right of Self-Defense)
編著譯者: 薛智仁
出版日期: 2021.03
刊登出處: 台灣/中研院法學期刊第 28 期 /1-72 頁
頁  數: 45 點閱次數: 2113
下載點數: 180 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 薛智仁
關 鍵 詞: 正當防衛合宜性挑唆防衛權利濫用維護法秩序保護個人權利自我負責原因不法行為罪刑法定原則
中文摘要: 依據主流刑法學說,挑唆防衛構成正當防衛之社會倫理限制事由,挑唆者喪失完整的正當防衛權限,理由是權利濫用禁止,以及正當防衛的維護法秩序或保護個人權利功能降低。本文認為,權利濫用禁止無法適用於正當防衛,在挑唆行為不影響侵害者自主決定實施現在不法侵害的情形下,防衛行為維護法秩序與保護個人權利的功能不受影響,故挑唆防衛的限制欠缺正當性。本文進一步認同原因不法行為理論,主張挑唆行為可能是故意或過失地實現犯罪構成要件的不法行為,挑唆者因此成立犯罪。多數學說提出法益侵害結果無法歸責於挑唆行為、承認不法挑唆行為將違反罪刑法定原則、不法挑唆與合法防衛無法併存等反對論點,都無法撼動此一理論的合理性。相對於通說之挑唆防衛成立要件和法律效果皆不夠明確,原因不法行為理論反而提供了更簡潔有力的解決方案。
英文關鍵詞: the right of self-defenserationalityprovocation defenseabuse of rightsustain public orderprotect individual rightsself-liabilityunlawful causenulla poena sine lege
英文摘要: According to the major criminal law theory and current practices, the provocation defense is excluded from the claim of self-defense. The substantial restriction on the use of the right of self-defense, traditionally, is the abuse of right, while modern view resorts to that the function of sustaining public order or protecting individual rights via self-defense would be decreased in this situation. This article argues that the abuse of right alone cannot be a reason for restricting the right of self-defense. In cases where the provocative action does not affect the will (i.e. self determination) of the assaulter, and the assaulter decides autonomously to implement an attack, the function of the right to self-defense is not impeded. Therefore, using provocation as a reason to restrict the right of self-defense is not justified. From this perspective, this article turns to the minority viewpoint, which claims that provocative action constitutes a form of criminality and therefore, provocateurs commit a crime. However, the majority viewpoint challenges that the infringements upon statutory interests shall not be regarded as a provocative action. Meanwhile, the majority argues, illegal provocation would be against the principle of nulla poena sine lege and illegal provocation cannot coexist with legal self-defense. All these challenges still cannot reduce the theoretical power of the minority viewpoint. To conclude, the minority viewpoint provides a more insightful and accurate solution.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、挑唆行為作為限制防衛的理由
一、權利濫用
二、禁止維護法秩序
三、喪失保護個人權利之需求
四、違反前行為保證人義務
五、禁止主張正當防衛之法律效果
六、小結
參、挑唆行為作為歸責對象
一、客觀不法
二、主觀不法
三、反駁質疑
四、理論優點
肆、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列