刑法教义学研究的中国主体性

发布时间：2018-10-30 19:19

【摘要】：刑法教义学既包括教义学方法,也包括教义学知识;教义学方法是无国界的,但教义学知识是对一国现行有效的法律所作的解释,因而是有国界的。德日刑法关于共同犯罪的规定表明,共犯的定罪与量刑均取决于正犯,因而决定了其共犯理论必须采取实质客观说以区分正犯与共犯;而中国刑法关于共同犯罪的规定表明,共同犯罪的定罪与量刑是截然可分的不同层次,因而在正犯与共犯的区分上采取形式客观说就足以解决问题。中国刑法和德日刑法对侵占罪规定的成立要件并不相同,"拒不退还"、"拒不交出"在中国的侵占罪中是一种客观处罚条件,是独立的行为要件,因而不能将其融入"非法占为已有"的含义之中。中国的刑法教义学研究必须清醒地认识到,要以中国刑法的规定为研究的逻辑起点并受其严格约束;要真正构建中国的刑法教义学,必须唤起研究者的主体意识。
[Abstract]:Dogmatics of criminal law includes both doctrinal methods and doctrinal knowledge, which is borderless, but doctrinal knowledge is an interpretation of the laws in force in a country and therefore has a national boundary. The provisions of German and Japanese criminal law on joint crime show that the conviction and sentencing of accomplice depend on the principal offender, which determines that the theory of accomplice must adopt the substantial objective theory to distinguish the principal offender from the accomplice. The provisions of Chinese criminal law on joint crime show that the conviction and sentencing of joint crime are diametrically divisible, so it is sufficient to solve the problem by adopting formal and objective view on the distinction between principal offender and accomplice. Chinese criminal law and German and Japanese criminal law have different requirements for the establishment of the crime of embezzlement. "refusing to return" and "refusing to surrender" are objective punishment conditions and independent elements of behavior in the crime of embezzlement in China. Therefore, it can not be incorporated into the meaning of "illegal occupation as existing". The study of Chinese criminal law dogmatics must clearly realize that it is necessary to take the provisions of Chinese criminal law as the logical starting point of the study and be strictly bound by it, and that the subject consciousness of the researchers must be aroused in order to truly construct China's criminal dogmatics.
【作者单位】：西南政法大学法学院;
【基金】：西南政法大学法学院院级青年教师科研培育项目(QK201403)的成果
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】