避险行为对被避险人的法律效果——以紧急避险的正当化根据为中心

Legal Effect on Counterparty of Emergency Risk Aversion

《刑法》第21条上的避险行为,分为正当的紧急避险(第1款)、免除刑罚的避险行为(第2款)和减轻处罚的避险行为(第2款)。如果被告人不得已的避险行为旨在保护明显更优越的公共利益、人身权利或更大的财产利益,那么,其避险行为处于必要限度内,可期待被避险人忍耐相应的避险行为。必要限度内的避险行为是正当行为。紧急避险的正当化根据,不应局限于功利主义的法益权衡说,而应引入公平视角,进而采取限制的社会连带说。限制的社会连带是被避险人对避险行为负有忍耐义务,进而不再实施防卫或转嫁危险的学理根据。如果避险行为所保全的利益并不明显优于被损害的利益,或者会产生与《刑法》第20条第3款所列暴力犯罪相等同的效果,则难以期待被避险人忍耐相应的避险行为,此时可采取反抗措施。

The Art. 21 of Chinese Criminal Code prescribes the reason of emergency. The paragraph 1 of Art. 21 regards the emergency as legal justification, while in the paragraph 2 of Art. 21 are the emergency that is not punishable and that should be punished less severely. When the risk avoiding action of perpetrator aims at the protection of evidently more important public interests, personal interests or property, his risk avoiding action can be recognized as an action of necessity, the third party concerned should tolerate the damage caused by this action. The emergency within the necessary limit is a kind of le- gal justification. The reason for justification is not only the pure utilitarian calculating of legal interests. A better argument for this is the ＂limited social joint liability＂ with the introduction of the fair principle. If the interests protected by the risk avoiding action are not obviously more important than the damaged interests, or it effects the individual as the violent action in para graph 3 of Art. 20 threatens the victims, the affected party could not be expected to tolerate the risk avoiding action. Conversely, the party can resist this action.