形式解释论与实质解释论对立的深度解读

A Further Analysis between the Essential and Formal Interpretation Theories of Criminal law

实质的刑法解释论与形式的刑法解释论是大陆法系不同的构成要件理论(构成要件符合性判断)之争的产物。由于我国两大解释论之争在逻辑起点和具体内涵上都存在模糊不清之处,因此有必要对我国当下形式解释论与实质解释论之争进行重新定位与解读。首先,传统的平面式犯罪论体系框架下的两大解释论之争是在"虚幻的对立"中展开的,其产生的原因实际上并不存在。其次,两大解释论之争是在阶层式犯罪论体系的语境下展开的,且与阶层式犯罪内部三阶层、二阶层的分歧有关。但是,当下我国形式解释论与实质解释论的争论焦点与其说是对"构成要件符合性"的解释之争,不如说是对"罪刑法定原则符合性"的理解之争。

The argument between different constitution theories （conformity judgment for constitutive elements） under the continental law system has given birth to the essential interpretation theory of crime law and the formal interpretation theory of crime law. Due to the ambiguity regarding logic starting point and concrete connotation of the argument between two interpretation theories in China, it is necessary to relocate and analyze this currently ongoing argument between essential interpretation and formal interpretation. Firstly, under the traditional flat crime theory system, the argument between this two interpretation theories is based on an illusionary conflict, thus there is actually no root cause for it. Secondly, the argu- ment between the two interpretation theories is conducted in the context of hierarchical crime system, related with the diver- gence in terms of two- hierarchy and three -hierarchy within hierarchical crime system. However, in present China, the argument between essential interpretation and formal interpretation concentrates more on the understanding for conformity of legality principle than on the interpretation for conformity of constitutive elements.