网络服务提供者违反管理义务入罪的刑法教义学分析——以法条语言表述的模糊性为分析进路

A Criminal-Dogmatics Analysis after the Incrimination of Violation of Management Obligations of Internet Service Provider——With an Analytical Approach of the Vagueness of Language Expression of Criminal Article

理论界将网络服务提供者管理义务违反入罪后的失范,归咎于法条语言表述中主语网络服务提供者概念及类型异化和宾语管理义务内容不确定性的现实诘问,以法定概念及类型的阙如为线索展开刑法教义学分析:由于立法上概念不明确、立法技术特局限性、言内语境不同及术语表述不统一,引起了网络服务提供者概念及类型的争执:二分说、三分说与四分说;围绕义务内容的不确定性,形成了技术功能区分说、'禁止性规范义务+命令性规范义务'区分说、'事前义务+事中义务'区分说与危害后果区分说。本文试图对理论争议进行反思:探讨的格局以刑法学问题为主,落在刑法规则的逻辑适用或设计上;概念与类型界定以及义务内容具有相对性;'信息网络'的范围是概念及类型化界定的前提;以法律、行政法规规定的管理义务为蓝本是确定义务内容的唯一标准。

The anomie of after the incrimination of violation of management obligations of internet service provider has been attributed to the real heckle of concept and type assimilation of internet service provider as the subjective and content uncertainty of management obligations as the objective in the language expression of criminal article.To make a criminal-dogma tics Analysis based on the clue of lack of legal concept and types,it is found that unclear legal concept,limited legislative technique,different linguistic context and unified term expression lead to the dispute about concept and types of internet service provider that consists of two-type theory,three-type theory and four-type theory;it is farmed that technological function distinction theory,'prohibitive normative obligation and compulsory normative obligation distinction theory,'prior obligations and subsequent obligations'distinction theory and harmful consequences distinction theory,surrounding the content uncertainty of management obligations.This paper attempts to reflect the theoretical disputes above:the pattern discussed is surrounding the criminal law issues to fall on the application and design of criminal rules;it is relative for the definition of concept,type and content of the obligation;the scope of'information network'is the prerequisite to define the concept and types;compulsory provisions of laws and administrative regulations are the only standard as the blueprint to determine the contents of obligations.