| 英文摘要 |
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. |
