正當防衛與比例原則（譯文）

Right to Self-Defense and the Principle of Proportionality

正當防衛應不應該受到比例原則的限制？若是，該如何論證此限制的正當性？關於此二問題，德國通說和常見的批判意見其實有著共同的基本命題：優越利益原則，並且是出於集體主義，亦即社會優先於個人的觀點，然而此觀點乃與當代的個人主義憲政思想相違。Greco教授此文嘗試提出另一種論述方式：以個人主義為起點，將正當防衛權定義為主觀權利的衍生權。由此得出：對正當防衛權的任何限縮，都應視為公法上所稱「公益目的的特別犧牲」。在個案中，國家若要限制正當防衛權，除了必須提出為什麼要此人犧牲的說理之外，也必須給予適當的補償（如同徵收的處理）。

Shall right to self-defense be restricted by the principle of proportionality? If so, howshall we justify such restriction? Regarding the two foregoing questions, the majorityopinion and common criticism in Germany have a common fundamental proposition: theprinciple of superior interests, which is also based on collectivism (i.e. the society issuperior to individuals). However, this perspective contradicts with the currentindividualistic constitutional thoughts. Professor Greco attempts to propose another way ofdiscourse in this article: Starting from individualism, the right to self-defense shall bedefined as a derivative right of the subjective right. Consequently, any restriction imposedagainst the right to self-defense shall be deemed as the “special sacrifice for publicinterest” under the public law. If the government wishes to restrict the said right inindividual cases, it shall not only provide reasoning for the person’s sacrifice, but alsooffer appropriate compensation (as the case of eminent domain).