论生命型紧急避险
发布时间：2018-08-09 14:34
【摘要】：“紧急时无法律”这一古老的格言早已为法律人所熟知，在多数国家的刑法规范中也能寻觅到紧急避险的身影。但事实上有关紧急避险争点依然很多，尤其是关于生命型紧急避险。所谓生命型紧急避险，是指为了保护本人或者他人的生命权免受正在发生的危险，不得已给第三方较小或者同等的生命权造成损害的行为。损害生命权的紧急避险属于违法阻却事由。其原因在于：符合法秩序的内在要求；社会法利益整体平衡；彰显法律正义价值；尊重人性；更有利保障生命法益。允许对生命权实施紧急避险的理论根据是：法律不强人所难；法律上个人保留条款；社会连带义务理论；法律正义；生命作为手段加以衡量的规范事实等。生命型紧急避险有其成立的特定条件，，在避险起因、避险意图、避险对象、避险限度、避险主体等方面与一般的紧急避险不同。保护多数生命时生命型紧急避险的成立条件与保护同等生命权的生命型紧急避险的成立条件有所不同。后者需要考虑是否存在降低自身法律保护的因素、被害人确定程序是否正当、是否实现了个人本位和社会本位的统一等条件。
[Abstract]:The old maxim "there is no law in time of emergency" has long been well known to law people, and can also be found in the criminal law norms of most countries. But the truth is that there are still plenty of arguments about emergency risk aversion, especially about life-type emergency havens. The so-called life-type emergency risk avoidance refers to the act of harming a third party's smaller or equivalent right to life in order to protect the right to life of one person or another person from an ongoing danger. The urgent risk of harming the right to life is an illegal cause of obstruction. The reasons are: accord with the inherent requirements of the legal order; balance the interests of the social law; highlight the value of legal justice; respect human nature; more conducive to the protection of life legal interests. The theoretical basis of allowing the implementation of the right to life is as follows: the law does not force people to do whatever they want; the personal reservation clause in law; the theory of social joint and several obligations; legal justice; and the normative facts that life is measured as a means, and so on. There are special conditions for life type emergency risk avoidance, which is different from general emergency risk avoidance in such aspects as the cause, intention, object, limit and subject of risk. The establishment conditions of life type emergency risk protection are different from those of life type emergency risk protection with the same right of life. The latter needs to consider whether there are factors to reduce their own legal protection, whether the victim determines whether the procedure is proper or not, and whether the unity of individual standard and social standard is realized.
【学位授予单位】：苏州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914
本文编号：2174387
[Abstract]:The old maxim "there is no law in time of emergency" has long been well known to law people, and can also be found in the criminal law norms of most countries. But the truth is that there are still plenty of arguments about emergency risk aversion, especially about life-type emergency havens. The so-called life-type emergency risk avoidance refers to the act of harming a third party's smaller or equivalent right to life in order to protect the right to life of one person or another person from an ongoing danger. The urgent risk of harming the right to life is an illegal cause of obstruction. The reasons are: accord with the inherent requirements of the legal order; balance the interests of the social law; highlight the value of legal justice; respect human nature; more conducive to the protection of life legal interests. The theoretical basis of allowing the implementation of the right to life is as follows: the law does not force people to do whatever they want; the personal reservation clause in law; the theory of social joint and several obligations; legal justice; and the normative facts that life is measured as a means, and so on. There are special conditions for life type emergency risk avoidance, which is different from general emergency risk avoidance in such aspects as the cause, intention, object, limit and subject of risk. The establishment conditions of life type emergency risk protection are different from those of life type emergency risk protection with the same right of life. The latter needs to consider whether there are factors to reduce their own legal protection, whether the victim determines whether the procedure is proper or not, and whether the unity of individual standard and social standard is realized.
【学位授予单位】：苏州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 赵拥军;;在规则冲突中寻求生命权紧急避险的支撑——以“大多数”语境下的行为功利主义为标尺[J];安徽广播电视大学学报;2011年01期
2 董为;梅传强;;以紧急避险本质为视角对紧急避险理论的探讨[J];西华师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2010年05期
3 贺晓东;;修正的肯定说之确立——试论对生命的紧急避险[J];法制与社会;2010年16期
4 杜文忠;生命的权力——一个紧急避险案例的法理学分析[J];贵州警官职业学院学报;2003年02期
5 张健一;;论紧急避险的法律性质[J];重庆理工大学学报(社会科学);2012年11期
6 彭文华;;紧急避险限度的适当性标准[J];法学;2013年03期
7 王永茜;;论现代刑法扩张的新手段——法益保护的提前化和刑事处罚的前置化[J];法学杂志;2013年06期
8 马荣春;周建达;;紧急避险权益对等肯定论[J];河海大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2011年04期
9 黄明儒;论紧急避险的概念与本质属性[J];华侨大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2005年02期
10 王刚;;营救者的损害与自我答责原则[J];法学研究;2010年03期
本文编号：2174387
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2174387.html
