摘要： 按照正当防卫权利束的观念,防卫权包含两种权利子项。其中,防卫主张权对应加害人容忍义务,而防卫许可(特权)则对应加害人无权利以及防卫人自身退避义务的不存在。但是,防卫主张权的内容与防卫人原本就拥有的生命、健康、身体主张权的内容重合,故而应当认为,非冗余意义上的防卫权仅仅是指防卫许可。我国《刑法》第20条第1款、第2款与第20条第3款分别将防卫权构造为两种不同的排他性许可。其中,防卫人未面临严重暴力犯罪威胁但却给加害人造成重伤及以上后果的情况,落入这两种排他性许可调整范围的缝隙处,利益衡量就寄生在这一缝隙之上。以“手段必要性”为依据排斥利益衡量,此种处理方式误解了防卫人的认识论地位。为此,需通过不法侵害的威胁程度、防卫反击的强度、边际防卫成功率这三个要素,重构防卫权行使限度的必要性要件,形成利益衡量的偏倚性均衡,澄清“手段必要性”的规范内涵。

关键词: 正当防卫, 权利, 利益衡量, 手段必要性, 排他性许可

Abstract: According to the concept of the cluster-rights to self-defense, the right to defense includes two entitlements, among which, the claim-right of defense corresponds to the tolerance duty of the offender, the permission (privilege) corresponds to the no-right of the offender and lack of the defender's own duty to retreat.However, because the content of the right to defense coincides with the content of the life, health and body claim-rights of the defender, it should be considered that the right to defense in the non-redundant sense only refers to the permission.Article 20, paragraph 1, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law, and Article 20, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law represent respectively two different exclusionary permissions, among them, the situation in which defender did not face serious risks, but the offender caused serious injury, falles into the gap of the two exclusionary permissions' scope, resulting in that propotionality is parasitic on the gap.Exclusion of propotionality based on “necessity of defense” is a misunderstanding of defender's epistemology conditions.Through the elements including threat of illegal infringement, the defense-strength, the marginal defense success rate,“necessity of defense” faces a reconstruction, and there could be a possibility of partial-balance, which clarifies the meaning of “necessity of defense”.

Key words: Self-Defense, Right, Propotionality, Necessity of Defense, Exclusionary Permission