正當防衛之法理基礎與成立界限：以法權原則為論述起點

The Legal Basis of Self-Defense and Its Requirements in Criminal Law

本文的目的是重新確立刑法上正當防衛的法理基礎，並基此設定正當防衛成立要件的內涵。傳統的個人保護原則與法證實原則皆無力證成正當防衛。個人保護原則要不是使正當防衛淪為自然狀態下的人際鬥爭而丟失其規範性質，就是受控於效益主義思維而無法呈現正當防衛的權利性質。法證實原則則陷入範疇錯誤，將原作為正當防衛被證立後之反射結果的法秩序效力概念用於正當防衛的證立層次。基此反省，本文嘗試從法權原則重新理解正當防衛。正當防衛是與個人權利必然相互連結的強制權能行使。在以法權關係維護為核心的刑法基本觀點中，實質阻卻違法原理為法權實現原則，這讓形式上實現侵害他人之構成要件、實質上意在反彈他人對權利領域之壓縮的強制力行使融貫地被合法化。從此觀點推論，本文認為建立正當防衛情境的要件是現在有責侵害。其中現在侵害意指攻擊已達風險輸出時點，唯有此時才存有可容許防衛者以強制力與之對抗的權利侵害。而要求有責侵害的理由在於，攻擊者有責任能力時才具備作為權利侵害之主觀面的權利侵害意志。至於防衛行為原則上只須滿足必要性的要求，以顯示其為回復權利領域所必需。所謂社會倫理限制並無道理，唯一的例外是，防衛者對攻擊者負有以管轄其生活風險為任務的保證人地位，此時防衛者面臨攻擊應選擇退避甚或忍受輕微侵害。 The purpose of this article is to establish the legal ground for justifiable self-defense and to set forth its requirements. After reviewing the principle of individual protection and the principle of legal order protection, which are used to be considered as the basis for the self-defense, the author argues that the ＂right principle＂ can justify acts in self-defense in a way consistent with the task of criminal law, i.e. maintenance of right-duty relation between people. The problem of the principle of individual protection is that self-defenses become fights between people in the natural status, where there are no concept of rights and duties. The principle of legal order protection is in flaw due to its circular argument, because the validity of legal order occurs, once the legitimacy of the norm is established. Based on the right principle, the author proposes that the rights of self-defense as coercive powers are necessarily connected with the individual rights, and the defender's act that harms to the attacker shall be permitted under two conditions. First, the attacker attempts to culpably infringe the personal rights of defender, because the necessity of defense exists only at this moment. Second, the defense is necessary to restore the sphere of personal rights. The defender doesn't have to choose to escape or to defense under risk. There should not be any other social-ethical restrictions on the act in self-defense, unless the defender has a legal duty to undertake the risk of the attacker. A defense can also be justified, even if the interest sacrificed is worth much more than the interest protected.