| 英文摘要 |
In criminal law normative argumentation, issues such as awareness of illegality, the standard of legal interests, relativity of illegality, and interpretive concepts fundamentally revolve around the question of positional stance. The objectivist stance asserts the existence of independent evaluative criteria beyond the normative text, rooted in the legal-philosophical foundation of“objective value order”in legal argumentation. Criminal law normative argumentation is a process of dialogue and consensus-building, representing intersubjective compromise and recognition. Objective value weaves through the interplay of facts, evidence, and norms. Under the dominance of positivism, the legal interest theory functions as a“unilateral projection,”failing to bridge the gap between facts and norms comprehensively. Criminal law paternalism attempts to transcend the debate between freedom and instrumentalism, but its foundational stance remains inherently tied to“instrumentality.”The condemnation of“inherent evil”serves as the cornerstone for the relative independence of criminal law. The distinction between criminal offenses and administrative offenses extends beyond“individual legal interests,”ultimately hinging on“normative violations.”Reshaping the theory of social adequacy is a critical pathway to resolving issues of exoneration. Practical jurisprudence has already provided interpretations in areas such as the enforceability of law, the principle of culpability, reasonable expectations, negation of unlawfulness, reconstruction of subject-object relationships, and the prioritization of family ethics. These advancements offer opportunities for theoretical systematization and further exploration. |