紧急避险合法化根据分析-法律·刑法学专业论文.docxVIP

紧急避险合法化根据研究 紧急避险合法化根据研究 西南政法大学硕士学位论文 西南政法大学硕士学位论文 PAGE PAGE 1 2 2 Abstract Necessity calls for emergency escape, and it has a long history as the self-defense, the biggest difference is the self-defense is the just vs. not just relation, that is the defense of illegal infringement; and necessity is the “just vs. just relation, is the conflict between two lawful interests, is to innocent the third violation of the legitimate rights and interests. Since necessity exhibits infringe upon the legitimate interests of the characteristics are similar to the general crime criminal law of many countries, so why not impose penalty instead of the positive? What are the reasons that the law does not sin, and has no criminal responsibility, or not to be punished? Is the necessity legal or illegal? If it is legal, what is the legal basis? If it is illegal, what is the basis of criminal responsibility? Around these series of problems, this article launches the discussion. First of all, the author interprets the concept of necessity, so the readers understand all the necessity conceptual differences, as the legal foundation of the necessity legalization in the following paper. When different countries discuss the problems of the basis of the legalization of national necessity, it is often placed under different concepts, such as the nature of the necessity, the basis of necessity without punishment, the legal nature of the necessity and so on, based on the concept of legal interpretation on the concept of positive and the other negative negation, thus they put forward the necessity of the legal expression of more appropriate conclusion. Secondly, the author will list the theories of different countries and criticize or supplement it from the theory of defects, thus the author gets the point of view -- the illegal resistance theory-- as the core of general interests, namely through general interests admit necessity as illegal behavior. In summary, the writer will delv