德日共犯制度实践思维当中的“主体间”与“单方化”——我国共犯制度思维合理性的域外视角审视

发布时间：2018-06-21 22:43

本文选题：共犯制度实践思维 + 主体间　；参考：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2013年06期

【摘要】：在日本共犯制度实践思维当中,以"何为共犯之‘共同’"这一提问为代表的"主体间思维",以及由此产生的犯罪共同说、行为共同说和所谓共同意思主体说等共同犯罪本质观念一直被作为解释参与犯成立条件和解决和诸多疑难问题的当然前提。然而,"主体间思维"在运用过程中存在"学说贯彻不彻底"、"主体间思维超越"和"学说内部分歧"等三种理论现象,充分说明了其解释能力的有限性。相比之下,德国共犯实践中的"单方化思维"对于共犯问题的解释解决显然具有"主体间思维"无可比拟的优势。这一对比告诉我们:同样在我国共犯制度实践中被运用着的"主体间思维"并不具有当然的合理性。
[Abstract]:In the practical thinking of Japanese accomplice system, the question of "what is the 'common' of accomplices" is represented by the "inter-subjectivity thinking", and the resulting joint crime theory. The concept of the nature of joint crime, such as the theory of joint behavior and the theory of the so-called common meaning subject, has always been taken as the natural premise to explain the conditions of establishment of the participating offenders and to solve many difficult problems. However, there are three theoretical phenomena in the application of "inter-subjectivity thinking", such as "incomplete implementation of the theory", "transcendence of thinking between subjects" and "internal divergence of theory", which fully explains the limitation of its interpretation ability. In contrast, the "unilateral thinking" in the practice of German accomplice obviously has the unparalleled advantage of "inter-subjectivity thinking" for the interpretation and solution of the complicity problem. This contrast tells us that the "inter-subjectivity thinking", which is also used in the practice of the accomplice system in our country, is not of course reasonable.
【作者单位】：吉林大学法学院;
【基金】：司法部法治建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目(05SFB5008)“共犯制度的根基与拓展”
【分类号】：D951.6;D931.3;D924.11

【共引文献】