犯罪本质比较研究
|
摘要
犯罪本质问题作为刑法学的基础理论问题,在一国的的刑法学体系中一向占有的理论地位。我国刑法理论发展逾三十年,以社会危害性概念为核心的犯罪本质理论一直占据通说的地位,但是随着罪刑法定原则在我国97年刑法中的确立,社会危害性理论受到了越来越多的质疑与批判。本文从理论溯源、理论内涵和功能分析的角度,对社会危害性理论以重新的梳理,并以大陆法系刑法理论中以法益概念为核心的犯罪本质理论为比较研究的对象,从理论史、理论内涵和功能分析的角度,对犯罪本质问题进行了深入的比较研究,以期确立一系列适当的标准,能够对我国的社会危害性理论给予客观中肯的认识和评价,为解决我国犯罪本质理论中面临的问题提供可行的思路与方法。
In the perspective of comparative research, the author tries to analyze the coincidence and difference in the content, function and amplification of our country’s social harmfulness theory about nature of crime and the theory of legal interest damage and norm violation about nature of crime in the criminal theory in continental law system, compares the advantage and disadvantage of the two theories and hopes to explain and interpret the feasibility and necessity of the introduction of the western legal interest damage theory. The contents of the thesis are followed as:
First part, the author introduces the theoretical content about nature of crime in our country and the criticism and anti-criticism of the theory of social damage, and proposes the questions.
Second part, the author tries to clarify the connotation and requirement of the principle of legality to analyze the due connotation, criminal function and the process and effect of enforcement of the concept of social harmfulness as nature of crime and built the basis for the following comparative research.
Third part, introduction and analysis of the relevant theory of substantial definition of crime in criminal theory in continental legal system, the analysis includes the theoretical connotation , criminal legal function and effect of enforcement.
Forth part, the author sets up the standard for comparison with the aim of modern criminal law. Upon the basis of analysis of criminal theories in our country and continental law system, we have the further comparative system to affirm the advantage and disadvantage of the two theories, and propose the reasonable judgment to the feasibility and necessity for the introduction of the concept of legal interest, theory of legal interest damage and norm violation.
The main viewpoints of the thesis are followed as:
1.the author supports the bipartite interpretation of“social harmfulness”in the perspective of function, which is the distinctive connotation of social harmfulness in the perspective of function of the legislative and jurisdiction. In our country’s criminal theory, social harmfulness is regarded as the innate character of crime. The concept is submitted in the angle of the substantial crime to solve the problem, which the people are not satisfied the formal definition of“crime is the act violating the criminal regulation”or“crime is the act punished by criminal law”, and ask“why”to interpret the connotation of crime and the standard of the foundation of crime, whose aim is to prove the justification of the existing law, but for the aim the law cannot provide itself and need the supports beyond itself. Hence in the angle of interpretation and regulation of legislation, the connotation of substantial definition of crime must exist beyond the effective law, and the“nonstandardness”and“absence of regulated quality”are not avoidable. So the view in our theory has nothing to be criticized in the degree that the nature of crime is the social harmfulness of act, it means that the act damages the social order and social relations. The called“social harmfulness”is a social way to interpret crime and absence of care to individual, and embodies the values of nation and society-oriented.
As the substantial definition of crime, the social harmfulness is used to not only interpret and regulate the legislation but also provide the interpretation and implementation of conviction and sentencing in the procedure of criminal jurisdiction. But the enforcement of the function is not directly manipulated by the substantial definition of crime and needs the support of the theoretical system of criminal construction. There are two problems in the sphere of criminal construction closely related with the effective law. One is that“social relations”and theory of social harmfulness are based on the social protection and ignorance the safeguard of human rights, and lack the guiding effect to safeguard human rights in the substantial implementation in constructive elements. Two is that there is not non-guilty aisle in the theoretical system of criminal construction, and is not available to amplify the proviso and short of manipulation and security of legal implementation.
2.In most criminal theories in continent law system, the substantial definition of crime is described as the act damaging the legal interest or violating the legal norm. There are some different periods of spiritual concept of legal interest, material concept of legal interest, constitutional concept of legal interest and non-material concept of legal interest in more than one hundred developing history. Today the non-material concept of legal interest is the most popular theory. But the issue of“what is legal interest”“has not achieved the nearly coincidence”(Roxin). Reaching the rather agreement in aspect of“to provide criminal politic standard for legislation, to help legislator what should to be punished and not be punished”, the German criminal theoretical circle admits the auxiliary protection to legal interest as the mission of criminal law. The denial or violation to“norm”is beyond the violation to the effective law’s norm. The theory of“norm”thinks the crime not only violates the effective law’s norm but also the social norm before the effective law. For the criminal police’s function to regulate the legislative goal, we know the“legal interest”and‘norm”are the concept with ambiguous connotation, beyond the effective laws, and short of“norm qualities”. The difference of legal interest and norm is the orientation of the concept. The orientation of concept of legal interest is submitted to restrict the national power of penalty and protect the individual’s interest; and the concept of legal interest of individual is the core in the concept. The orientation of the norm is submitted to protect social stability and social communication. There is a common agreement on the function of legal interest in legislation and jurisdiction, but not distinction the concept of legal interest in legislation and jurisdiction. The advantage of the stratum structure of the theory of establishment of crime in the continental law system is that the judgment of the violation and responsibility after constructive elements provides the possible non-guilty aisle and is helpful to achieve the criminal protection to human rights, and safeguard the manipulation and security of the laws’implementation.
3.Accepted by the theoretical circle, the goal of criminal law is to protect the society and safeguard the human rights, and the presumption of the nature of crime must serve the goal of criminal law. Both the theoretical contents and enforcement of function of criminal law should follow the goal of criminal law. As the standard, comparing the theory of nature of crime in our nation with the substantial concept of crime in continental law, we almost make the conclusions as:
(1)In the aspect of theoretical connotation, there is no significant difference between social harmfulness and legal interest. The social harmfulness is argued by the ambiguous connotation and absence of basic regulatory qualification, and the same to legal interest. It is impossible to interpret and regulate to legislative justification with the basic regulatory qualification for both social harmfulness and legal interest.
(2)In aspect of theoretical criminal function, they have the nearly same functions such as the function of legislative interpretation and restrict, the function of substantial illegal judgment, the function of classification of protected objectives and the function of interpretation of constructive elements. The judicial function contains he function of substantial illegal judgment and he function of interpretation of constructive elements.
(3)In the aspect of enforcement of function of criminal law, there is significant difference between social harmfulness and legal interest. Because the basis of social harmfulness and legal interest are different, one is upon the value of nation and society and another is upon the value of individual. To the function of legislative interpretation and restrict, the concept of social harmfulness lacks the idea guide to protect human rights and the effective legislative restrict. To the function of interpretation of constructive elements, the concept of legal interest is related to the effective law and favorable to the definiteness for the interpretation of constructive elements and stability of laws; the“social relations”lack the connections and regulative to the law, and are easily interpreted the constructive elements at random and not favorable to definiteness and stability of laws. To the function of substantial illegal judgment, because the stratum structure of the theory of establishment of crime in the continental law system has the non-guilty aisle to guarantee the implementation of the social justice and manipulation and safety of implementation of law, further safeguard the human rights. The theory of four constructive elements in China does not propose the systematic status for preventive illegal causes and preventive responsibility causes. It has not the non-guilty aisle to guarantee the implementation of the social justice and manipulation and safety of implementation of law, further cannot safeguard the human rights.
On the above-mentioned comparative analysis, we can know, the criticism to the“social harmfulness”is reasonable; the concept of legal interest take advantage in safeguard human rights. But we should realize; the advantage of the concept of legal interest comparing to the concept of social harmfulness is mainly focused in the function of jurisdiction. We could replace the“social relations”and“legal interest”in the function of interpretation of constructive elements, but the enforcement of the most important function of substantial illegal judgment depends on the existence of the stratum structure of the theory of establishment of crime in the continental law system, the problem cannot be solved through the simply replacement and the concept of crime is legal interest damage. If we don’t have a self-exanimation and reconstruction on the theory of crime constitution in China, we just introduce the concept of“legal interest”; we cannot solve any substantial problems except showing the veil of the safeguard the human rights.
In the perspective of comparative research, the author tries to analyze the coincidence and difference in the content, function and amplification of our country’s social harmfulness theory about nature of crime and the theory of legal interest damage and norm violation about nature of crime in the criminal theory in continental law system, compares the advantage and disadvantage of the two theories and hopes to explain and interpret the feasibility and necessity of the introduction of the western legal interest damage theory. The contents of the thesis are followed as:
First part, the author introduces the theoretical content about nature of crime in our country and the criticism and anti-criticism of the theory of social damage, and proposes the questions.
Second part, the author tries to clarify the connotation and requirement of the principle of legality to analyze the due connotation, criminal function and the process and effect of enforcement of the concept of social harmfulness as nature of crime and built the basis for the following comparative research.
Third part, introduction and analysis of the relevant theory of substantial definition of crime in criminal theory in continental legal system, the analysis includes the theoretical connotation , criminal legal function and effect of enforcement.
Forth part, the author sets up the standard for comparison with the aim of modern criminal law. Upon the basis of analysis of criminal theories in our country and continental law system, we have the further comparative system to affirm the advantage and disadvantage of the two theories, and propose the reasonable judgment to the feasibility and necessity for the introduction of the concept of legal interest, theory of legal interest damage and norm violation.
The main viewpoints of the thesis are followed as:
1.the author supports the bipartite interpretation of“social harmfulness”in the perspective of function, which is the distinctive connotation of social harmfulness in the perspective of function of the legislative and jurisdiction. In our country’s criminal theory, social harmfulness is regarded as the innate character of crime. The concept is submitted in the angle of the substantial crime to solve the problem, which the people are not satisfied the formal definition of“crime is the act violating the criminal regulation”or“crime is the act punished by criminal law”, and ask“why”to interpret the connotation of crime and the standard of the foundation of crime, whose aim is to prove the justification of the existing law, but for the aim the law cannot provide itself and need the supports beyond itself. Hence in the angle of interpretation and regulation of legislation, the connotation of substantial definition of crime must exist beyond the effective law, and the“nonstandardness”and“absence of regulated quality”are not avoidable. So the view in our theory has nothing to be criticized in the degree that the nature of crime is the social harmfulness of act, it means that the act damages the social order and social relations. The called“social harmfulness”is a social way to interpret crime and absence of care to individual, and embodies the values of nation and society-oriented.
As the substantial definition of crime, the social harmfulness is used to not only interpret and regulate the legislation but also provide the interpretation and implementation of conviction and sentencing in the procedure of criminal jurisdiction. But the enforcement of the function is not directly manipulated by the substantial definition of crime and needs the support of the theoretical system of criminal construction. There are two problems in the sphere of criminal construction closely related with the effective law. One is that“social relations”and theory of social harmfulness are based on the social protection and ignorance the safeguard of human rights, and lack the guiding effect to safeguard human rights in the substantial implementation in constructive elements. Two is that there is not non-guilty aisle in the theoretical system of criminal construction, and is not available to amplify the proviso and short of manipulation and security of legal implementation.
2.In most criminal theories in continent law system, the substantial definition of crime is described as the act damaging the legal interest or violating the legal norm. There are some different periods of spiritual concept of legal interest, material concept of legal interest, constitutional concept of legal interest and non-material concept of legal interest in more than one hundred developing history. Today the non-material concept of legal interest is the most popular theory. But the issue of“what is legal interest”“has not achieved the nearly coincidence”(Roxin). Reaching the rather agreement in aspect of“to provide criminal politic standard for legislation, to help legislator what should to be punished and not be punished”, the German criminal theoretical circle admits the auxiliary protection to legal interest as the mission of criminal law. The denial or violation to“norm”is beyond the violation to the effective law’s norm. The theory of“norm”thinks the crime not only violates the effective law’s norm but also the social norm before the effective law. For the criminal police’s function to regulate the legislative goal, we know the“legal interest”and‘norm”are the concept with ambiguous connotation, beyond the effective laws, and short of“norm qualities”. The difference of legal interest and norm is the orientation of the concept. The orientation of concept of legal interest is submitted to restrict the national power of penalty and protect the individual’s interest; and the concept of legal interest of individual is the core in the concept. The orientation of the norm is submitted to protect social stability and social communication. There is a common agreement on the function of legal interest in legislation and jurisdiction, but not distinction the concept of legal interest in legislation and jurisdiction. The advantage of the stratum structure of the theory of establishment of crime in the continental law system is that the judgment of the violation and responsibility after constructive elements provides the possible non-guilty aisle and is helpful to achieve the criminal protection to human rights, and safeguard the manipulation and security of the laws’implementation.
3.Accepted by the theoretical circle, the goal of criminal law is to protect the society and safeguard the human rights, and the presumption of the nature of crime must serve the goal of criminal law. Both the theoretical contents and enforcement of function of criminal law should follow the goal of criminal law. As the standard, comparing the theory of nature of crime in our nation with the substantial concept of crime in continental law, we almost make the conclusions as:
(1)In the aspect of theoretical connotation, there is no significant difference between social harmfulness and legal interest. The social harmfulness is argued by the ambiguous connotation and absence of basic regulatory qualification, and the same to legal interest. It is impossible to interpret and regulate to legislative justification with the basic regulatory qualification for both social harmfulness and legal interest.
(2)In aspect of theoretical criminal function, they have the nearly same functions such as the function of legislative interpretation and restrict, the function of substantial illegal judgment, the function of classification of protected objectives and the function of interpretation of constructive elements. The judicial function contains he function of substantial illegal judgment and he function of interpretation of constructive elements.
(3)In the aspect of enforcement of function of criminal law, there is significant difference between social harmfulness and legal interest. Because the basis of social harmfulness and legal interest are different, one is upon the value of nation and society and another is upon the value of individual. To the function of legislative interpretation and restrict, the concept of social harmfulness lacks the idea guide to protect human rights and the effective legislative restrict. To the function of interpretation of constructive elements, the concept of legal interest is related to the effective law and favorable to the definiteness for the interpretation of constructive elements and stability of laws; the“social relations”lack the connections and regulative to the law, and are easily interpreted the constructive elements at random and not favorable to definiteness and stability of laws. To the function of substantial illegal judgment, because the stratum structure of the theory of establishment of crime in the continental law system has the non-guilty aisle to guarantee the implementation of the social justice and manipulation and safety of implementation of law, further safeguard the human rights. The theory of four constructive elements in China does not propose the systematic status for preventive illegal causes and preventive responsibility causes. It has not the non-guilty aisle to guarantee the implementation of the social justice and manipulation and safety of implementation of law, further cannot safeguard the human rights.
On the above-mentioned comparative analysis, we can know, the criticism to the“social harmfulness”is reasonable; the concept of legal interest take advantage in safeguard human rights. But we should realize; the advantage of the concept of legal interest comparing to the concept of social harmfulness is mainly focused in the function of jurisdiction. We could replace the“social relations”and“legal interest”in the function of interpretation of constructive elements, but the enforcement of the most important function of substantial illegal judgment depends on the existence of the stratum structure of the theory of establishment of crime in the continental law system, the problem cannot be solved through the simply replacement and the concept of crime is legal interest damage. If we don’t have a self-exanimation and reconstruction on the theory of crime constitution in China, we just introduce the concept of“legal interest”; we cannot solve any substantial problems except showing the veil of the safeguard the human rights.
引文
①中央人民政府法制委员会编.刑法资料汇编:第一辑[C].1953:3.
②参见[苏]皮昂特科夫斯基等.苏联刑法科学史[M].曹子丹等译.北京:法律出版社,1984:19.
③参见何秉松.犯罪构成系统论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1995:29.
①参见何秉松.犯罪构成系统论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1995:21.
②参见[苏]皮昂特科夫斯基等.苏联刑法科学史[M].曹子丹等译.北京:法律出版社,1984:19.
③参见[苏]H·A·别利亚耶夫,M·H·科瓦廖夫.苏维埃刑法总论[M].马改秀等译.群众出版社,1987:62.
①参见高铭暄.中华人民共和国刑法的孕育和诞生[M].北京:法律出版社,1981:35.
②参见马克昌.犯罪通论[M].武汉大学出版社,1991:12.
③陈兴良:社会危害性理论——一个反思性检讨[A].法学研究[J],2000(1):8.
④参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:382—383.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:383—387.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:389.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:394.
①参见樊文.罪刑法定与社会危害性的冲突——兼评新刑法第13条关于犯罪的概念[J].法律科学,1998(1):26.
②参见李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[J].政法论坛,1998(6):3.
①齐文远,周详:社会危害性与刑事违法性关系新论[J].中国法学,2003(1):123.
②李海东.刑法原理入门[M].北京:法律出版社,1998:82.
③刘为波博士认为所谓法益说,即将社会危害性作对刑法所保护的社会关系的侵犯这种理解是在国家、社会本位的传统刑法背景之下作出的,不具有西方法益的理念,只是徒有虚名。参见刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1999:87.
④参见刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1999:87—88.
①参见樊文.罪刑法定与社会危害性的冲突——兼评新刑法第13条关于犯罪的概念[J].法律科学,1998(1):27—28.
②参见田宏杰.中国刑法现代化研究[M].中国方正出版社,2001:359.
①陈兴良.社会危害性理论——一个反思性检讨[J].法学研究,2000(1):5—15.
②参见刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1999:153.
①李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[J].政法论丛,1998(6):4.
②参见刘艳红.社会危害性理论之辨正[J].中国法学,2002(2):169—171.
①参见储槐植,张永红.善待社会危害性概念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起[J].法学研究,2002(3):92—94.
②李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[J].政法论丛,1998(6):4—5.
③持同一观点的见储槐植,张永红.善待社会危害性概念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起[J].法学研究,2002(3);韩永初.社会本质论——一种重新解说的社会危害性理论[J].法制与社会发展,2004(6);齐文远,周详.社会危害性与刑事违法性关系新论[J].中国法学,2003(1).
①参见刘艳红.社会危害性理论之辨正[J].中国法学,2002(2):173—177.
②参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:2.
③参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:3—4.
①参见周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:200—202.
②参见周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:221.
①李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:2.
②参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:266—267.
①参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:114.
②参见李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:54—55.
③参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:259—260.
①李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:55.
②参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:274.
①蔡墩铭.刑法基本理论研究[M].台北:汉林出版社,1986:346.
②李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:67.
③参见李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:60—80.
①参见李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:21—22.
②[意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:67.
③[意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:83.
①参见[意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:67—68.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:383.
②高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:383.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:384—389.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:389—391.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:472.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:474.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:474—477.
①[德]马克思·韦伯.社会科学方法论[M].韩水法,莫茜译.北京:中央编译出版社,1999:19.
②参见[美]哈耶克:何谓‘社会的’,它是什么意思?[A].冯克利译.经济,科学与政治——哈耶克思想精粹[C].南京:江苏人民出版社,2000:287.
③该论者将国家、社会放在同一位阶来看待,其理由是,在我国并不存在西方国家基于个人权利,由个人自治的市民社会,在我国,社会与国家在功能上并不存在分化,它们承担着同样的政治职能。
①参见刘为波:犯罪本质的意义重建[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第14卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2004:175.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:394.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:394.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:389.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:390—391.
①参见王晓辉:论社会危害性的矛盾结构及其功能性蕴含[J].杭州商学院学报,2003(6):48—50.
②参见方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第10卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2002:144—145.
①参见肖中华.犯罪构成及其关系论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000:44.
②对以下问题的分析,主要受益于李洁教授在课堂上的讲述及课后借阅的讲义,在此表示诚挚的谢意。
①德国刑法典.冯军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000:9.
②von Liszt/Schmidt,Lehrbuch 12/13.Auflage,1903, S.140f.
③Mezger,Lehrbuch,S.197f.
④Hans-Heinrich Jescheck/Thomas Weigend,Lehrbuch 5.Auflage,1996,S.234f.
⑤Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006,S.602f.
①M.E.Mayer,Rechtsnormen und Kulturnormen,S.109ff.
②Welzel,Strafrecht,11.Auflage,S.3.
③[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究.2004(1):106.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.33ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.35ff.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.40ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.46ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.50.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.74ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.79f.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.83f.
④Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.84f.
⑤Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.92f.
⑥Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.84ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.85ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.92.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.94f.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.125ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.131ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.133ff.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.167f.
④Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.170ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.251f.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.156ff.
①Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.51f.
②Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.54ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.300ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.312ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.309ff.
①Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.42f.
①Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.46ff.
②Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.58f.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.367ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.388ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.393ff.
①Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006,S.14f.
①张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:66—69.
①张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:70—75.
①参见[德]雅科布斯.规范人格体社会——法哲学前思[M].冯军译.北京:法律出版社,2001:34.
②参见[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究,2004(1):106.
①参见[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究,2004(1):97.
①参见[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究,2004(1):103—104.
①Günther Jakobs,Strafrecht AT--Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre, 2.Auflage, 1993,S.37f.
①许玉秀.当代刑法思潮[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005:23—24.
①参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:196.
②参见丁后盾.刑法法益原理[M].北京:中国方正出版社,1999:105.
①林山田.刑事法论丛[M].台北:五角书局,1987:336.
②张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:197.
③参见林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M],台北:台湾三民,书局,1978:4.
①林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M].台北:台湾三民书局,1978:6.
②参见林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M].台北:台湾三民书局,1978:8.
③参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:241—242.
④陈志龙.法益与刑事立法[M].台北:台湾大学丛书编辑委员会,1992:152.
①林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M].台北:台湾三民书局,1978:6.
②张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:208.
①参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:212—213.
②参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:213.
①张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:214.
①Hans-Heinrich Jescheck/Thomas Weigend,Lehrbuch 5.Auflage,1996,S.1ff.
②[美]哈耶克.自由秩序原理[M].邓正来译.北京:三联书店,1997:190.
①曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:62.
②参见曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:63.
③[德]拉德布鲁赫.法学导论[M].米健,朱林译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1997:96.
④曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:64.
⑤Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006,S.139f.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:382—383.
①高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:472页.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:485—493.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:494—498.
①许玉秀.犯罪阶层体系及其方法论[M].台北:成阳印刷股份有限公司,2000:4.
1.高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
2.李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006.
3.李洁.罪与刑的立法规定模式[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
4.张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
5.周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
6.周光权.法治视野中的刑法客观主义[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
7.陈兴良.犯罪论体系研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
8.徐岱.中国刑法近代化论纲[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
9.许玉秀.当代刑法思潮[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005.
10.丁后盾.刑法法益原理[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2000.
11.王安异.刑法中的行为无价值和结果无价值[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.
12.任喜荣.伦理刑法及其终结[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
13.吴玉梅.德国刑法中的客观规则理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
14.[德]罗克辛.德国刑法学总论(第一卷)[M].王世洲译.北京:法律出版社.2005.
15.[德]耶塞克,魏根特.德国刑法教科书(总论)[M].徐久生译.北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
16.[德]雅科布斯.行为责任刑法——机能性描述[M].冯军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
17.[德]雅科布斯.规范人格体刑法学——法哲学前思[M].冯军译.北京:法律出版社,2001.
18.[德]施特拉腾韦特,库伦.刑法总论Ⅰ——犯罪论[M].杨萌译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
22.[德]拉德布鲁赫.法哲学[M].王朴译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
23.[德]考夫曼,哈斯默尔.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流译.北京:法律出版社,2002.
24.Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972.
25.Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994.
26.von Liszt/Schmidt,Lehrbuch 12/13.Auflage,1903.
27.Hans-Heinrich Jescheck/Thomas Weigend,Lehrbuch 5.Auflage,1996.
28.Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006.
29.M.E.Mayer,Rechtsnormen und Kulturnormen.
30.Welzel,Strafrecht.11.Auflage.
31.Urs Kindh?user,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,2.Auflage.
32 . Günther Jakobs,Strafrecht AT--Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre,
2.Auflage,1993.
33.Ulfrid Neumann,Cornelius Prittwits(Hrsg.),Personale Rechtsgutslehre und Opferorientierung im Strafrecht,2007.
1.陈兴良.社会危害性理论——一个反思性检讨[J].法学研究,2000(1).
2.储槐植,张永红.善待社会危害性概念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起[J].法学研究,2002(3).
3.刘艳红.社会危害性理论之辨正[J].中国法学,2002(2).
4.韩永初.犯罪本质论——一种重新解说的社会危害性理论[J].法制与社会发展,2004(6).
5.齐文远,周详.社会危害性与刑事违法性关系新论[J].中国法学,2003(1).
6.赵秉志,陈志军.社会危害性与刑事违法性的矛盾及其解决[J].法学研究,2003(6).
7.刘志远.社会危害性概念之正当性考察[J].中国刑事法杂志,2003(4).
8.李晓明,陆岸.社会危害性与刑事违法性辨析——重在从‘罪刑法定’视角观之[J].法律科学,2005(6).
9.孙立红.也谈犯罪的社会危害性——关于社会危害性的再认识[J].浙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2000(4).
10.樊文.罪刑法定与社会危害性的冲突——兼析新刑法第13条关于犯罪的概念[M].法律科学,1998(1).
11.李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[M].政法论丛,1998(6).
13.莫洪宪,叶小琴.社会危害性和刑事违法性关系辨正[M].江苏警官学院学报,2003(4).
14.聂立泽.社会危害性与刑事违法性及其关系论[M].中山大学学报,2003(2).
16.沈海平.社会危害性再审视[M].中国刑事法杂志,2004(2).
17.姚兵.犯罪构成视野中的社会危害性概念[M].海南大学学报人文社会科学版,2006(3).
18.王良顺.社会危害性与刑事违法性的关系的新解读[M].河北法学,2005(12).
19.曾昭霆.刑事违法性与社会危害性之关系论——犯罪性的双层系审查机制之提倡[M].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2005(6).
23.方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[M].刑事法评论(第10卷),2002.
24.刘为波.犯罪本质的意义重建[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第14卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
25.刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
28.[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究.2004(1).
②参见[苏]皮昂特科夫斯基等.苏联刑法科学史[M].曹子丹等译.北京:法律出版社,1984:19.
③参见何秉松.犯罪构成系统论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1995:29.
①参见何秉松.犯罪构成系统论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1995:21.
②参见[苏]皮昂特科夫斯基等.苏联刑法科学史[M].曹子丹等译.北京:法律出版社,1984:19.
③参见[苏]H·A·别利亚耶夫,M·H·科瓦廖夫.苏维埃刑法总论[M].马改秀等译.群众出版社,1987:62.
①参见高铭暄.中华人民共和国刑法的孕育和诞生[M].北京:法律出版社,1981:35.
②参见马克昌.犯罪通论[M].武汉大学出版社,1991:12.
③陈兴良:社会危害性理论——一个反思性检讨[A].法学研究[J],2000(1):8.
④参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:382—383.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:383—387.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:389.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:394.
①参见樊文.罪刑法定与社会危害性的冲突——兼评新刑法第13条关于犯罪的概念[J].法律科学,1998(1):26.
②参见李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[J].政法论坛,1998(6):3.
①齐文远,周详:社会危害性与刑事违法性关系新论[J].中国法学,2003(1):123.
②李海东.刑法原理入门[M].北京:法律出版社,1998:82.
③刘为波博士认为所谓法益说,即将社会危害性作对刑法所保护的社会关系的侵犯这种理解是在国家、社会本位的传统刑法背景之下作出的,不具有西方法益的理念,只是徒有虚名。参见刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1999:87.
④参见刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1999:87—88.
①参见樊文.罪刑法定与社会危害性的冲突——兼评新刑法第13条关于犯罪的概念[J].法律科学,1998(1):27—28.
②参见田宏杰.中国刑法现代化研究[M].中国方正出版社,2001:359.
①陈兴良.社会危害性理论——一个反思性检讨[J].法学研究,2000(1):5—15.
②参见刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1999:153.
①李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[J].政法论丛,1998(6):4.
②参见刘艳红.社会危害性理论之辨正[J].中国法学,2002(2):169—171.
①参见储槐植,张永红.善待社会危害性概念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起[J].法学研究,2002(3):92—94.
②李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[J].政法论丛,1998(6):4—5.
③持同一观点的见储槐植,张永红.善待社会危害性概念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起[J].法学研究,2002(3);韩永初.社会本质论——一种重新解说的社会危害性理论[J].法制与社会发展,2004(6);齐文远,周详.社会危害性与刑事违法性关系新论[J].中国法学,2003(1).
①参见刘艳红.社会危害性理论之辨正[J].中国法学,2002(2):173—177.
②参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:2.
③参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:3—4.
①参见周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:200—202.
②参见周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:221.
①李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:2.
②参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:266—267.
①参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:114.
②参见李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:54—55.
③参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:259—260.
①李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:55.
②参见姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003:274.
①蔡墩铭.刑法基本理论研究[M].台北:汉林出版社,1986:346.
②李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:67.
③参见李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:60—80.
①参见李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006:21—22.
②[意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:67.
③[意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:83.
①参见[意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:67—68.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:383.
②高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:383.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:384—389.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:389—391.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:472.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:474.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:474—477.
①[德]马克思·韦伯.社会科学方法论[M].韩水法,莫茜译.北京:中央编译出版社,1999:19.
②参见[美]哈耶克:何谓‘社会的’,它是什么意思?[A].冯克利译.经济,科学与政治——哈耶克思想精粹[C].南京:江苏人民出版社,2000:287.
③该论者将国家、社会放在同一位阶来看待,其理由是,在我国并不存在西方国家基于个人权利,由个人自治的市民社会,在我国,社会与国家在功能上并不存在分化,它们承担着同样的政治职能。
①参见刘为波:犯罪本质的意义重建[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第14卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2004:175.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:394.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:394.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:389.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:390—391.
①参见王晓辉:论社会危害性的矛盾结构及其功能性蕴含[J].杭州商学院学报,2003(6):48—50.
②参见方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第10卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2002:144—145.
①参见肖中华.犯罪构成及其关系论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000:44.
②对以下问题的分析,主要受益于李洁教授在课堂上的讲述及课后借阅的讲义,在此表示诚挚的谢意。
①德国刑法典.冯军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000:9.
②von Liszt/Schmidt,Lehrbuch 12/13.Auflage,1903, S.140f.
③Mezger,Lehrbuch,S.197f.
④Hans-Heinrich Jescheck/Thomas Weigend,Lehrbuch 5.Auflage,1996,S.234f.
⑤Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006,S.602f.
①M.E.Mayer,Rechtsnormen und Kulturnormen,S.109ff.
②Welzel,Strafrecht,11.Auflage,S.3.
③[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究.2004(1):106.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.33ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.35ff.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.40ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.46ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.50.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.74ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.79f.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.83f.
④Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.84f.
⑤Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.92f.
⑥Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.84ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.85ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.92.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.94f.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.125ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.131ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.133ff.
③Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.167f.
④Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.170ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.251f.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.156ff.
①Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.51f.
②Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.54ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.300ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.312ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.309ff.
①Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.42f.
①Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.46ff.
②Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994,S.58f.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.367ff.
②Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.388ff.
①Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972,S.393ff.
①Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006,S.14f.
①张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:66—69.
①张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:70—75.
①参见[德]雅科布斯.规范人格体社会——法哲学前思[M].冯军译.北京:法律出版社,2001:34.
②参见[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究,2004(1):106.
①参见[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究,2004(1):97.
①参见[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究,2004(1):103—104.
①Günther Jakobs,Strafrecht AT--Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre, 2.Auflage, 1993,S.37f.
①许玉秀.当代刑法思潮[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005:23—24.
①参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:196.
②参见丁后盾.刑法法益原理[M].北京:中国方正出版社,1999:105.
①林山田.刑事法论丛[M].台北:五角书局,1987:336.
②张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:197.
③参见林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M],台北:台湾三民,书局,1978:4.
①林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M].台北:台湾三民书局,1978:6.
②参见林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M].台北:台湾三民书局,1978:8.
③参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:241—242.
④陈志龙.法益与刑事立法[M].台北:台湾大学丛书编辑委员会,1992:152.
①林山田.刑法特论(上册)[M].台北:台湾三民书局,1978:6.
②张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:208.
①参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:212—213.
②参见张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:213.
①张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:214.
①Hans-Heinrich Jescheck/Thomas Weigend,Lehrbuch 5.Auflage,1996,S.1ff.
②[美]哈耶克.自由秩序原理[M].邓正来译.北京:三联书店,1997:190.
①曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:62.
②参见曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:63.
③[德]拉德布鲁赫.法学导论[M].米健,朱林译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1997:96.
④曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:64.
⑤Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006,S.139f.
①参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:382—383.
①高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:472页.
②参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:485—493.
③参见高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005:494—498.
①许玉秀.犯罪阶层体系及其方法论[M].台北:成阳印刷股份有限公司,2000:4.
1.高铭暄.刑法学原理(第一卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
2.李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006.
3.李洁.罪与刑的立法规定模式[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
4.张明楷.法益初论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
5.周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
6.周光权.法治视野中的刑法客观主义[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
7.陈兴良.犯罪论体系研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
8.徐岱.中国刑法近代化论纲[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
9.许玉秀.当代刑法思潮[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005.
10.丁后盾.刑法法益原理[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2000.
11.王安异.刑法中的行为无价值和结果无价值[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.
12.任喜荣.伦理刑法及其终结[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
13.吴玉梅.德国刑法中的客观规则理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
14.[德]罗克辛.德国刑法学总论(第一卷)[M].王世洲译.北京:法律出版社.2005.
15.[德]耶塞克,魏根特.德国刑法教科书(总论)[M].徐久生译.北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
16.[德]雅科布斯.行为责任刑法——机能性描述[M].冯军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
17.[德]雅科布斯.规范人格体刑法学——法哲学前思[M].冯军译.北京:法律出版社,2001.
18.[德]施特拉腾韦特,库伦.刑法总论Ⅰ——犯罪论[M].杨萌译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
22.[德]拉德布鲁赫.法哲学[M].王朴译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
23.[德]考夫曼,哈斯默尔.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流译.北京:法律出版社,2002.
24.Knut Amelung,Rechtsgüterschutz und Schutz der Gesellschaft,1972.
25.Muessig,Schutz abstraker Rechtsgueter und abstrakter Rechtsgueterschutz,1994.
26.von Liszt/Schmidt,Lehrbuch 12/13.Auflage,1903.
27.Hans-Heinrich Jescheck/Thomas Weigend,Lehrbuch 5.Auflage,1996.
28.Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,BandⅠ,4.Auflage,2006.
29.M.E.Mayer,Rechtsnormen und Kulturnormen.
30.Welzel,Strafrecht.11.Auflage.
31.Urs Kindh?user,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil,2.Auflage.
32 . Günther Jakobs,Strafrecht AT--Die Grundlagen und die Zurechnungslehre,
2.Auflage,1993.
33.Ulfrid Neumann,Cornelius Prittwits(Hrsg.),Personale Rechtsgutslehre und Opferorientierung im Strafrecht,2007.
1.陈兴良.社会危害性理论——一个反思性检讨[J].法学研究,2000(1).
2.储槐植,张永红.善待社会危害性概念——从我国刑法第13条但书说起[J].法学研究,2002(3).
3.刘艳红.社会危害性理论之辨正[J].中国法学,2002(2).
4.韩永初.犯罪本质论——一种重新解说的社会危害性理论[J].法制与社会发展,2004(6).
5.齐文远,周详.社会危害性与刑事违法性关系新论[J].中国法学,2003(1).
6.赵秉志,陈志军.社会危害性与刑事违法性的矛盾及其解决[J].法学研究,2003(6).
7.刘志远.社会危害性概念之正当性考察[J].中国刑事法杂志,2003(4).
8.李晓明,陆岸.社会危害性与刑事违法性辨析——重在从‘罪刑法定’视角观之[J].法律科学,2005(6).
9.孙立红.也谈犯罪的社会危害性——关于社会危害性的再认识[J].浙江省政法管理干部学院学报,2000(4).
10.樊文.罪刑法定与社会危害性的冲突——兼析新刑法第13条关于犯罪的概念[M].法律科学,1998(1).
11.李立众,李晓龙.罪刑法定与社会危害性的统一——与樊文先生商榷[M].政法论丛,1998(6).
13.莫洪宪,叶小琴.社会危害性和刑事违法性关系辨正[M].江苏警官学院学报,2003(4).
14.聂立泽.社会危害性与刑事违法性及其关系论[M].中山大学学报,2003(2).
16.沈海平.社会危害性再审视[M].中国刑事法杂志,2004(2).
17.姚兵.犯罪构成视野中的社会危害性概念[M].海南大学学报人文社会科学版,2006(3).
18.王良顺.社会危害性与刑事违法性的关系的新解读[M].河北法学,2005(12).
19.曾昭霆.刑事违法性与社会危害性之关系论——犯罪性的双层系审查机制之提倡[M].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2005(6).
23.方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[M].刑事法评论(第10卷),2002.
24.刘为波.犯罪本质的意义重建[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第14卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
25.刘为波.诠说的底线——对以社会危害性为核心话语的我国犯罪观的批判性考察[A].陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[C].北京:北京大学出版社,1998.
28.[德]雅科布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[J].王世洲译.比较法研究.2004(1).
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |