請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87990
標題: | 論正當防衛之補充性原則 The subsidiary Principle of Self-Defense |
作者: | 陳志瑋 Chih-Wei Chen |
指導教授: | 薛智仁 Chih-Jen Hsueh |
關鍵字: | 正當防衛,補充性原則,國家武力獨占,補充關係,防衛必要性, The right of self-defense,The sbusidiary principle,The state monopoly on the use of force,The subsidiary relationship,Defense necessity, |
出版年 : | 2023 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 本文的研究目的在於探究正當防衛補充性原則。通說見解主張,當負責危害防止任務的國家機關在場、有保護人民意願時,被侵害者的防衛行為必須補充於國家機關危害防止行為,不得逕自實施防衛行為,將其稱為「正當防衛補充性原則」。正當防衛補充性原則的意義有兩個,第一、正當防衛與國家機關危害防止行為具補充關係。被侵害者必須將國家機關危害防止行為納入潛在防衛手段考量之中。第二、被侵害者必須負擔優先利用國家機關危害防止行為的法律義務。不過,通說見解只對於被侵害者在決定潛在防衛手段時必須將國家機關危害防止行為一併納入考量一事達成共識,對於在何種情形下被侵害者應優先利用國家機關危害防止行為仍有爭議。在具體衝突現場提供救助的第三人除了國家機關外,也可能是私人救助者,被侵害者與私人救助者間是否具備補充關係,也有疑問。
本文認為,正當防衛補充性原則的意義只在於:(1)確立正當防衛與國家危害防止行為的補充關係,被侵害者在決定潛在防衛手段時必須將國家機關合法危害防止行為一併納入考量,以及(2)確立自我防衛與私人救助者防衛救助行為的補充關係,當客觀第三人從事前角度足以認識私人救助者願意進行救助時,被侵害者必須將防衛救助行為一併納入考量。至於被侵害者是否應優先利用國家機關危害防止行為,只須透過必要性要件進行審查即可。當國家機關得透過干預程度較低或干預程度相同的危害防止行為有效終止侵害時,被侵害者必須優先利用國家機關危害防止行為。最後,被侵害者是否應優先利用防衛救助行為,同樣透過必要性要件進行審查即可。在必要性要件審查上,不只需要考量該防衛行為是否侵害最小,更要兼及保障被侵害者主觀權利意義。 The purpose of this article is to explore the subsidiary principle of self-defense. According to the generally accepted view, when the state organs responsible for deterrence of danger are present and willing to protect people, the defense of defender is subsidiary to the state organs’ deterrence of danger action. The defender is not allowed to take defense on their own. The generally accepted view called it as “The subsidiary principle of self-defense.” The subsidiary principle of self-defense has two meanings. First, there is a subsidiary relationship between the defense and the state organs’ deterrence of danger action. The defender must consider the state organs’ deterrence of danger actions as part of their potential defense measures. Second, the defender has a legal obligation to prioritize the use of the state organs’ deterrence of danger actions. However, the generally accepted view only reaches a consensus on the conclusion that the defender must consider the state organs’ deterrence of danger actions as part of their potential defense measures. There is still a lot of controversies regarding the circumstances in which the defender should prioritize the use of the state organs’ deterrence of danger actions. Besides state organs, third parties who provide help at the specific conflict location can also be private helper. There is still a question about whether there is an application of the subsidiary principle of self-defense between the defender and the private helper. This article claims that the meaning of the subsidiary principle of self-defense lies only in: (1) establishing the subsidiary relationship between the defense and the state organs’ deterrence of danger actions. The defender must consider the state organs’ legal deterrence of danger actions as part of their potential defense measures, and (2) establishing the subsidiary relationship between the self-defense doing by the defender and the defense doing by the third party who aims to provide help. When an objective third party from ex ante point knows that the private helper is willing to provide help, the defender must consider the defense doing by the third party who aims to provide help. As for whether the defender should prioritize the use of state organs’ deterrence of danger actions, it only needs to be examined based on the requirement of necessity. When the state organs can effectively terminate the infringement with a lesser or equal degree of intervention, the defender must prioritize the use of the state agency's preventive actions. The last but not the least, whether the defender should prioritize the use of defense doing by the third party who aims to provide help, it is also relies on the requirement of necessity. In the examination of necessity, it has to consider not only whether the defense interferes the least, but also the meaning of the defender’s subjective rights. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87990 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202301335 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(全球公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf | 4.77 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。