【摘要】：不純正不作為犯的問題歷來是刑法理論中的難題，不純正不作為犯的理論發(fā)展至今雖有近兩個(gè)世紀(jì)，但其中的幾乎每一問題在理論都上都存在或多或少的分歧，作為義務(wù)來源的問題更是如此。 保證人地位理論即用來說明作為義務(wù)，以作為處罰不純正不作為犯的依據(jù)。以保證人地位說明作為與不作為的等價(jià)性，進(jìn)而來說明不作為犯的可罰性，源于學(xué)者那格拉（Nagler）在1938年所創(chuàng)設(shè)的保證人說，此學(xué)說的觀點(diǎn)在不純正不作為犯的作為義務(wù)問題上全異于之前的理論學(xué)說，作為義務(wù)的有無需要探討行為人是否居于保證人地位，只有行為人居于此地位又能夠履行義務(wù)，卻出現(xiàn)了怠于履行的不作為情狀，造成了刑法上所言的危害結(jié)果的發(fā)生，那么就會(huì)出現(xiàn)不作為與作為的等價(jià)性。由此看來，“保證人說”的創(chuàng)設(shè)，是對(duì)不純正不作為犯領(lǐng)域研究的重大革新，對(duì)整個(gè)不作為犯理論體系的完善都起到了至關(guān)重要的作用。德國、日本等一些大陸法系的國家，都是在此學(xué)說的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行了本國的不純正不作為犯的立法。然而，我國刑法理論研究的關(guān)注點(diǎn)長期集中在形式作為義務(wù)來源的范圍上，在實(shí)質(zhì)方向上少有用心，無所發(fā)展。之于我國立法層面，總則沒有提及不作為的問題，分則更是與不純正不作為犯扯不上半點(diǎn)干系，這顯然與德日的不作為犯的發(fā)展形成了鮮明對(duì)比。 刑法理論中，我國教科書很少有提及保證人地位理論，更多的是列舉式的形式作為義務(wù)，因此在司法實(shí)踐中，法庭對(duì)于以不作為方式造成危害結(jié)果的不純正不作為犯的定罪處罰，不但沒有相應(yīng)條文的援引，而且也無堅(jiān)實(shí)的法理基礎(chǔ)支撐，被一些學(xué)者詬病為道德戰(zhàn)勝了法律，因而研究保證人地位理論可以為進(jìn)一步推進(jìn)我國不純正不作為犯的理論發(fā)展，藉此對(duì)我國立法層面提供一些有益的啟示。 全文除引言與結(jié)論外共分三個(gè)部分，主要從保證人地位理論的內(nèi)涵、發(fā)展以及適用方面對(duì)其進(jìn)行了探討。 第一部分是保證人地位理論的概述，主要剖析了“保證人地位”一詞的含義，，并對(duì)其提出的背景進(jìn)行了闡述，對(duì)作為義務(wù)理論的發(fā)展?fàn)顩r進(jìn)行了概括梳理，分析了“作為義務(wù)”一詞與“保證人地位”一詞的關(guān)系，轉(zhuǎn)而引出保證人的類型與特征，為后文的細(xì)化討論做下鋪墊。 第二部分是保證人地位理論的實(shí)質(zhì)化運(yùn)動(dòng)，首先對(duì)前文所提“保證人說”進(jìn)行來龍去脈的分析，進(jìn)而綜合概述保證人實(shí)質(zhì)化理論發(fā)展的世界成果，在此基礎(chǔ)上去保證人地位實(shí)質(zhì)化運(yùn)動(dòng)進(jìn)行總結(jié)評(píng)述，看到其進(jìn)步性的同時(shí)，指出其理論發(fā)展過程中存在的瑕疵。 第三部分是全文的重點(diǎn)，是關(guān)于保證人地位理論在我國適用的探索，保證人地位理論雖然在一些國家有了較為成熟的發(fā)展，但也應(yīng)認(rèn)識(shí)到其存在的些許不足，且應(yīng)預(yù)示其我國適用因出現(xiàn)水土不服而出現(xiàn)的某些排斥現(xiàn)象。所以對(duì)其進(jìn)行新的解釋和發(fā)展是適用之前首先要解決的，在理論有了根基后是對(duì)其類型的細(xì)化分析，通過一些小案例來實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)保證人類型的全面把握，最終對(duì)于在我國的適用提出立法層面以及理論發(fā)展方向的建議。
[Abstract]:The problem of non-pure non-crime has always been a difficult problem in the theory of criminal law, and it is not pure and not as the theoretical development of the crime. In recent two centuries, almost every problem in it has more or less differences in the theory, especially as the source of the obligation. To ensure that the theory of human status is used as an obligation to act as an act of punishment that is not pure and does not act as a crime In order to ensure that the status of the person is regarded as the equivalent of the non-act, the author of this theory, which is created by the scholar's granler in 1938, said that the theory's point of view was totally different from the previous theoretical study on the issue of the omission of the offender as an obligation. As an obligation, it is necessary to explore whether the perpetrator is in the guarantor's position, and only the actor is in this position and can fulfill the obligation, but the failure to perform the duty is not as a form of emotion, resulting in the result of the harm stated in the criminal law. If you're a student, you're going to be out of the way. Therefore, the creation of the "surety said" is an important innovation for the research in the field of non-pure crime and has played a very important role in the perfection of the criminal system as a whole In some countries of the continental law system, such as Germany and Japan, this theory has been established on the basis of this theory. However, the focus of the research on the theory of criminal law in our country is focused on the form as the source of obligation for a long time. In the aspect of our country's legislative level, the general rules do not refer to the problem of omission, and the separation is more and less pure and not as the one-point dry line, and it is clear that there is a clear contrast with the development of the non-crime of Germany In the theory of criminal law, there are few references to the theory of the guarantee of the status of the person, and more is the form of enumeration. The punishment of the crime not only does not have the reference of the corresponding provisions, but also has no solid legal basis support. On the Development of China, it is beneficial to provide some benefits to the legislative level of our country In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the paper is divided into three parts, mainly from the connotation, development and application of the theory of the guarantee of human status. The first part is an overview of the theory of ensuring the status of man. The meaning of the term "guarantee person's position" is mainly analyzed, and the background of the term is described. The development of the theory of obligation is summarized, and the word of "as an obligation" and the "guarantee" s position " 【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張小寧;;論基于保證人地位的作為義務(wù)——關(guān)于保證人說的緣起與現(xiàn)狀[J];山東警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

2 尹彥品;;不純正不作為犯義務(wù)來源之界定[J];河北法學(xué);2009年07期

3 張果;;從實(shí)質(zhì)法義務(wù)說到保證人說——兼論不真正不作為犯的發(fā)展方向[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年03期

4 謝紹華;;先行行為——保證人類型之否定[J];中國刑事法雜志;2008年06期

5 劉曉山;孫寶民;;不純正不作為犯作為義務(wù)來源的反思與重構(gòu)[J];中國刑事法雜志;2008年04期

6 張莉瓊;;夫妻間刑法作為義務(wù)的法理分析[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2008年02期

7 黎宏;“見死不救”行為定性的法律分析[J];法商研究;2002年06期

8 李衛(wèi)紅,任勇;論不作為犯罪中的作為義務(wù)[J];煙臺(tái)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年02期

9 李曉龍;關(guān)于先行行為范圍的探討[J];山東法學(xué);1999年01期

10 黎宏 ,大谷實(shí);論保證人說(下)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1994年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳榮飛;不純正不作為犯的基本問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

本文編號(hào)：2478410