正當防衛與比例原則

Right to Self-Defense and the Principle of Proportionality

通說認為，正當防衛之目的在保護個人權利和維護法秩序，故防衛者不負迴避侵害的義務，防衛手段不適用利益權衡，但是在侵害輕微及利益明顯失衡時，防衛手段受社會倫理的限制。近年來，此一觀點受到憲法學挑戰，基於憲法對生命權的保障及維護法秩序的價值相對性，主張防衛手段應該受到比例原則之拘束，使正當防衛權受到更多的限制。本文將指出，正當防衛之理論基礎不是維護法秩序，而是在於維護個人主觀權利的完整性，受到不法侵害之人有權採取必要手段維護其主觀權利；若是國家欲對正當防衛權增設限制，此一限制必須符合比例原則。以此為基礎，本文認為在侵害輕微及利益明顯失衡的情形，限制正當防衛權所保障之生命利益有限，卻使被侵害者陷入刑罰及反遭正當防衛的風險，並向社會大眾傳達國家拒絕保護財產權的訊息，故此一限制難以通過衡平性審查。據此，上述情狀不應構成正當防衛之限制理由。

The majority opines that the purpose of right to self-defense is to protect individual’s rightsand maintain legal order, therefore, the defender doesn’t assume the obligation of infringementavoidanceand interest-balancing doesn’t apply to the defense approach. However, the defenseapproach will be restricted by social ethics when facing obvious imbalance of interests and minorinfringement.This article points out that the theoretical foundation for right to self-defense is notmaintaining the legal order but the integrity of individual’s subjective rights. Victims of illegalinfringements are entitled to take necessary means to protect their subjective rights, andgovernments’ restrictions on right to self-defense shall be restrained by the principle ofproportionality. Based on that foundation, this article opines that, under the circumstances ofminor infringements and obvious imbalance of interests, the life interest protected byrestricting right to self-defense is relatively limited compared to the risks (i.e. incriminationand the counterattack of right to self-defense) imposed against the victims, delivering amessage to the public that governments refuse to protect property rights. Thus, this restrictioncan hardly pass the review of equitable principle. Consequently, the abovesaid circumstancesshall not constitute restrictions on right to self-defense.