《反恐怖主义法》与反恐刑法衔接不足之探讨

发布时间：2018-03-17 10:06

本文选题：反恐怖主义法　切入点：反恐刑法　出处：《法学杂志》2017年02期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：《反恐怖主义法》与反恐刑法二者在协调上存在较大的问题。《反恐怖主义法》第3条使用的"恐怖主义"一词限制了刑法的调整范围,因为刑法以行为为处罚对象,建议以刑法规范中的"恐怖行为"取而代之。《反恐怖主义法》第1条将"国家安全"纳入了恐怖活动犯罪的侵犯客体,从立法的目的在于"维护公共安全"出发,建议删除《反恐怖主义法》第1条中的"国家安全",或者在刑法中增加"危害行为既构成恐怖活动犯罪,又构成其他犯罪的,依照刑法关于惩治恐怖活动犯罪的规定定罪处罚"的规定。《反恐怖主义法》对"恐怖主义""恐怖活动""恐怖活动组织""恐怖活动人员""恐怖事件"等术语的界定与刑法不一致,应该澄清。《反恐怖主义法》中的违法行为与反恐刑法中的恐怖活动犯罪界限模糊,应通过情节规定加以区分。《反恐怖主义法》与刑法中关于管辖权的规定虽然不一致,但是从刑法的基本法定位以及执法的可能性出发,应该认为前者并没有对后者的规定进行实质性修改。
[Abstract]:There are considerable problems in the coordination between the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Anti-Terrorism Criminal Law. The term "terrorism", used in Article 3 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, limits the scope of adjustment of the criminal law, since the criminal law punishes acts, It is suggested that "terrorist acts" in criminal law norms be replaced. Article 1 of the Anti-Terrorism Law includes "national security" as the object of violation of the crime of terrorist activities, proceeding from the legislative purpose of "safeguarding public safety". It is proposed to delete the words "national security" in Article 1 of the Anti-Terrorism Act or to add in the Criminal Code the words "if an act of endangerment constitutes a crime of terrorist activity as well as other offences," The definition of the terms "terrorism", "terrorist activity", "terrorist activity organization", "terrorist activity person" and "terrorist event" in the Anti-Terrorism Act is inconsistent with the Criminal Code, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code on the criminalization and punishment of crimes related to terrorist activities. It should be clarified that... the line between the offences in the Anti-Terrorism Act and the criminal acts of terrorist activities in the criminal law against terrorism is blurred and should be distinguished by the circumstances. Although the Anti-Terrorism Act is inconsistent with the provisions on jurisdiction in the Criminal Code, However, starting from the orientation of the basic law and the possibility of enforcing the law, it should be considered that the former has not substantially amended the provisions of the latter.
【作者单位】：北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院;山东科技大学法学院;
【分类号】：D922.14

【相似文献】