防卫挑拨中有限防卫权之提倡

Advocation of Limited Defense Right in Dealing with Defense Provocation

防卫挑拨中防卫权的问题,一直以来是正当防卫研究的重要范畴之一。通说一般否定挑拨防卫中挑拨者具有防卫权,理由往往有二:其一,挑拨者完全是出于加害的意思而实施反击行为,主观上欠缺防卫意思;其二,基于权利不得滥用的考虑而限制挑拨者的防卫权。但是,无论是立足于正当防卫的本质,亦或是从防卫意思的角度出发,还是从实务部门处理防卫挑拨案件意欲达到的社会效果而言,司法实践中这种完全剥夺挑拨者防卫权的做法,是不值得赞同的。故而,为了真正实现正当防卫的规范目的和制度价值,需要对防卫挑拨的具体情状作出区分,并根据防卫挑拨的不同情状有限地赋予挑拨者以防卫权。

Defense right in defense provocation has always been an important issue in the research of justifiable self-defense. It is generally recognized that the provocative has no right to defend with two reasons. The first reason is that the provocative attacks others with harm intention on purpose, lacking the intention of defense. The second reason is that the provocative’s rights should be limited based on the idea that rights must not be abused. However, whether from the perspec. tive of the essence of justifiable self-defense, or the purpose of defense, or social effect that the judicial authorities intend to achieve by dealing with the case, this judicial practice of completely depriving the provocative of right to defend is not wor. thy of approval. Therefore, it is necessary to make a classification according to different specific situations of defense provo. cation and limitedly entitle the provocative to defend in order to truly realize the normative purpose and institutional value of legitimate defense.