阻卻不法之緊急避難：法理基礎、適用範圍與利益權衡標準

Affirmative Defense of Necessity: Legal Foundations, Scope of Application and Criterion of Balance of Interests

通說認為刑法第24條之緊急避難是阻卻不法事由，其理論根據在於優越利益原則。此一效益主義觀點將個人視為國家或社會利益的載具，不符合法秩序的個人自主原則。不僅如此，這個觀點也造成緊急避難和其他阻卻不法事由的適用關係模糊，以及緊急避難的利益權衡標準不明確。因此，本文從個人自主原則出發，主張攻擊性緊急避難和防禦性緊急避難是兩種不同的緊急權限，前者的法理基礎在於被避難人的社會連帶義務，後者的法理基礎則是結合妨害人責任及避難人的社會連帶義務。本文的主張有助於釐清緊急避難的適用範圍及其利益權衡標準。首先，由於緊急避難的法理基礎在於社會連帶義務，故僅適用於人際的利益衝突，至於個人內部的利益衝突，則應適用被害人（推測）承諾的阻卻不法事由。其次，緊急避難的利益權衡標準必須類型化，攻擊性緊急避難適用重大優越標準，防禦性緊急避難僅適用合乎比例標準，在極端情形下，殺人行為可能適用防禦性緊急避難而合法化。上述論點不僅可以作為現行刑法第24條之適用方針，而且顯示立法政策上應該分別規定攻擊性和防禦性緊急避難。 The recognized law theory based on the principle of prevalent interests takes article 24 of the criminal law as an affirmative defense. It starts off utilitarianism, views individuals as the vehicle of country or society, which doesn't conform to the principle of individual autonomy. Not only that, this concept also blurred necessity and other affirmative defenses, and makes the criterion of balance of interests indeterminate. Therefore, this article starts off the principle of individual autonomy, distinguishes aggressive and defensive necessity. Aggressive necessity based on the principle of solidarity obligation and defensive necessity combined the responsibility of disturber and solidarity obligation. This article will clear the application scope of necessity and the criterion of balance of interests. First of all, the legal foundation of necessity is social solidarity obligation, so it only applies to the interpersonal interests conflict. As for the conflicts of the personal interior, should apply to the affirmative defense of commitment of the victim. On these grounds, in the cases of arbitrary medical treatment and preventing others to suicide can only apply to the affirmative defense of commitment of the victim, but in the cases of assisting in suiciding, if the purpose of article 275 of the criminal law is the public interest of forbidding murder, as this public interest conflicts with the patient's interest of reducing the pain, in this situation, there is a possibility to apply to an affirmative defense. Secondly, criterion of balance of interests of necessity should be classified. The aggressive necessity applies to the substantial prevalent criterion, and defensive necessity only applies to proportional criterion. In extreme cases, a homicidal act can be legalized by applying to the defensive necessity. The above points are not only the guidelines of article 24 of the criminal law but also show that we should legislate the aggressive and defensive necessity separately.