侵害人视角下的正当防卫论

为扭转我国正当防卫审判实践中长期存在的唯结果论倾向,有必要从侵害人的视角出发,对正当防卫的教义学研究重新加以审视。正当防卫的本质除了法益保护,还在于侵害人因违反不得侵害他人法益的义务,主动使自己陷入法益冲突的险境,从而使自身法益的值得保护性下降。侵害人法益值得保护性的下降程度影响着防卫权边界的划定,从而与防卫限度的判断密切相关。如果站在实施防卫行为时,综合考量侵害行为给有效防卫造成的困难、侵害人给防卫人的安全带来的危险程度,能够认定防卫行为是为有效、安全地制止不法侵害所需的最低限度反击手段,则侵害人法益的值得保护性归于消灭,除非被损害的法益与被保护的法益在价值上存在极端悬殊的差别。     

Self-Defense,Punishment and Forfeiture

Abstract

According to the self-defense view, the moral justification of punishment is derived from the moral justification of an earlier threat of punishment for an offense. According to the forfeiture view, criminals can justly be punished because they have forfeited certain rights in virtue of their crimes. The paper defends three theses about these two views. (1) The self-defense view is false because the right to threaten retaliation is not independent of the right to carry out that threat. (2) A more plausible account of the right to threaten says instead that the right to retaliate is primary to the right to threaten, and that the former right in turn arises because aggressors forfeit the right not to suffer retaliation. (3) The “fair warning thesis,” according to which just punishment must be preceded by a threat, is less plausible than first appearances suggest and is therefore no serious obstacle to the view of threats described above.     

Preventive War and Permissive Normative Order

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. president George W. Bush articulated a new national security strategy based on striking terrorist organizations and the states that harbor them before they could endanger the United States. Though expressed in the language of preemption, the Bush strategy embodied a far more problematic doctrine of preventive warfare. Whereas the grounds for preemption lie in evidence of a credible, imminent threat, the basis for prevention rests on the suspicion of an incipient, contingent threat. We argue that an American national security strategy that embraces preventive war will set an inauspicious precedent, undermining normative restraints on when and how states may use military force.     

Understanding Bystander Behavior: The Influence of and Interaction Between Bystander Characteristics and Situational Factors

Most researchers point to the death of Kitty Genovese in 1964 as the genesis of interest in studying bystander response to crime (Laner, Benin, & Ventrone, 2001; Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002; Moriarty, 1975; Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1980). Since then, researchers have examined the role of situational variables and of victim, perpetrator, and bystander characteristics on whether or not bystander intervention occurs. In the present study, the researchers used a factorial design to determine whether the self-reported likelihood of bystander intervention and type of intervention (passive/active) varied by the location of the offense, time constraints, and bystander characteristics (e.g., height/weight, self-defense training, and life-saving training). Results suggest that gender, race, location of offense, self-defense training, and height and weight play a role in self-reported bystander behavior. An interaction between gender, location of offense, and self-defense training was also evident.     

Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back in School: Between Inexcusable Violence and Self-Defense

Israeli schools expressly forbid a student to hit back after being attacked. In semistructured interviews,71 Israeli educators were asked for their views on the hitting-back tactic. The interviews compared their attitude toward hitting back as teachers with their take on the matter as parents. The results, analyzed using grounded theory, show that most educators would not object if their children hit back in self-defense when attacked but would discipline students who hit back unless they can prove their claim of self-defense. Interviewees are much less inclined to discipline retaliators who do manage to prove self-defense but feel that investigations to verify self-defense under school conditions are impractical. To deter bullies, they say, teachers must declare their readiness to discipline everyone involved; otherwise, bullies will falsely claim self-defense. The discussion explores the implications of role theory on teachers’ attitudes.     

自卫权行使前提的法律问题研究

在国际法上自卫权是国家的一项自然权利,是禁止使用武力和以武力相威胁基本原则规定下,一种使用武力的合法例外。《联合国宪章》第51条对自卫权予以规定,并提出行使的前提——"受到武力攻击",但是,《联合国宪章》并未就该行使前提进行进一步明确及解释。因此,有必要对武力攻击的对象、来源、时机、规模以及选择的必要性原则等进行阐述,并对规范应用自卫权提供一些建议。     

“不法侵害”范围辨析

不法侵害是刑法中正当防卫的对象。不法侵害的范围应限定为,普通人针对一般法益、重大法益,或无责任能力人针对重大法益所实施的具有急迫攻击性、侵害性,并能够为防卫行为有效控制的违法犯罪行为。能够在客观上归咎于人的动物的重大侵袭,也可以成为不法侵害。     

The Sovereignty Dodge and the Responsibility to Control: Should the US Do What Pakistan Won't Do?1

The killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was justified by the Obama administration as an act of self-defense. Proponents of an expanded notion of self-defense argue that sovereignty implies responsibility not only for the protection of human rights, but also for the provision of public goods more generally, including effective territorial control. States which are unable to control their territory frequently become safe havens for militants who threaten the security of other states. Pakistan is a paradigmatic case of a ‘sovereignty dodge’ who, in the eyes of the United States, has forfeited its sovereign right to non-interference because of its failure to live up to its responsibility to control. In this article I explore the legality of US strikes against militant targets in Pakistan. I conclude that while international jurisprudence continues to adhere to a conservative reading of the rules on the use of force, states themselves have interpreted the law on self-defense more broadly, evincing a desire to keep the rules as indeterminate as possible.     

试论公民环境权的刑事保障

从关于公民环境权的刑事立法、司法现状看,目前还远远不能满足保障公民环境权的需要。只有在现有刑法基础上明确环境权是公民之基本权利,增设"侵害公民环境权罪"、"环境保护自卫行为",建立公民环境权刑事诉讼制度,创设公民环境权的刑事司法救济途径,力求环境保护刑事执法措施到位,才能充分保障公民环境权的实现。