Reconstructing the Jurisprudential Basis of Self-Defense
The jurisprudential basis of self-defense is an important issue in the dogmat-ics of self-defense.The"individualistic approach",the"hyper-individualistic approach"and the"dualistic approach"that exist in the literature attempt to justify self-defense in terms of the positive effects of the act of self-defense,but ignore the nature of self-defense as private vio-lence and the principle that"the end doesn't justify the means".In the context of modern states,self-defense as private violence has an inherent tense relationship with the principle of the state's monopoly on violence,according to which citizens have no original right to use pri-vate violence,and all forms of private violence are blocked by the state's monopoly on vio-lence.However,in the case of self-defense,the blockade is lifted to a certain extent by the constitutional duty of state protection,namely,if the state is unable to stop unlawful force and protect the legal interests by its own power because it is not present when the aggressor commits a wrongful act,then the constitutional duty of state protection requires the legislator to establish a permissive norm to grant citizens the right to use private violence,so as to prevent citizens'rights to life,right to person,property rights,and other fundamental rights and interests from being in a completely unprotected state.It can be seen that the jurisprudential basis of self-de-fense lies in the interaction and reconciliation between the principle of the state's monopoly on violence and the duty of state protection.According to this view,the following specific issues can be explained.Regarding the limits of the interpretation of self-defense,the"principle of le-gality"should be observed,and the practice of extending the application of the provisions of self-defense by analogy is not tolerated by the principle of the state's monopoly on violence.The limits of self-defense have always been a controversial issue.The approach of"the princi-ple of the state's monopoly on violence+the state's duty to protect"suggests that the right of self-defense should be fully bound by the principle of proportionality because self-defense is a product of the state's duty to protect,which implies the state's interference in the fundamental rights of the aggressor.This approach can also properly interpret"the defense for others"and"the defense for the public".The right of defense for others is not an independent right but is derived from the victim's right to self-defense.This transfer mechanism is consistent with the value orientation of the duty of state protection,namely to provide adequate protection of the le-gal interests of fundamental rights.As far as the right of defense for the public is concerned,"national interests"and"public interests"in Article 20 of China's Criminal Law do not in-clude abstract social order and public order that are not directly related to individual legal inter-ests.Public interests should refer to public property and public interests that can be directly re-duced to individual legal interests,while national interests refer to"vital interests of the state"that have an impact on the survival of the nation.
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
维普
