刑事制定法与习惯法冲突之解决——论法教义学视野下习惯法的运行逻辑

发布时间：2018-06-06 13:54

本文选题：制定法 + 习惯法　；参考：《中南大学学报(社会科学版)》2015年01期

【摘要】：法教义学的路径可以缓解当前司法人员面对刑事制定法与习惯法冲突时所面临的尴尬。法教义学视野下习惯法的运行逻辑主要通过对犯罪成立要件的判断来实现。习惯法于规范构成要件要素和开放的构成要件的认定中具有较大运行空间,但为保证构成要件的定型性,在构成要件解释时,其他要素或要件的解释应尽可能排除习惯法的影响。在违法性判断阶段,习惯法的判断主要是借助社会相当性理论来实现。由于违法的判断是实质的、具体的,故习惯法在此的判断应当结合具体个案分析。在有责性判断中,违法性认识尽管于理论上是习惯法出罪的一条路径,但实际功用很小,更合适的路径应是期待可能性的判断。然目前对期待可能性之理解过于偏狭,应依规范责任论对这一理论进行适当重构。
[Abstract]:The path of the doctrine of law can alleviate the embarrassment faced by the judicial personnel when they face the conflict between the criminal law and the customary law. The logic of customary law in the view of legal dogma is mainly realized by judging the essential elements of crime. In order to ensure the formality of the constitutive elements, the customary law has a large operation space in the determination of the elements of the norm and the open elements, but in order to ensure the formality of the constitutive elements, when the constitutive elements are interpreted, The interpretation of other elements or elements should exclude, as far as possible, the effects of customary law. In the stage of illegality judgment, the judgment of customary law is mainly realized by the theory of social equivalence. Because the judgment of illegal law is substantial and concrete, the judgment of customary law here should be combined with specific case analysis. In the judgment of responsibility, illegality is a path of the crime of customary law in theory, but the actual function is very small, and the more appropriate way should be the judgment of expectation possibility. However, the current understanding of the possibility of expectation is too narrow, so we should reconstruct the theory according to the theory of normative responsibility.
【作者单位】：海南大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社科基金项目“财产罪基础理论研究”(09YJC820024) 海南大学研究生科技创新项目“刑事制定法与习惯法冲突之解决”(2014HDY0042)
【分类号】：D920.0

【参考文献】