摘要： 国家机关工作人员的监管渎职行为与重大安全责任事故之间的紧密联系,揭示了其在理论研究中的重要价值。在分析渎职行为与损害结果的因果关系时,直接应用传统总论学说呈现出一定的局限性,往往未能超越归因层面的因果流程考察。尽管缓和的结果归属与远因溯责的立场考虑到了渎职行为的特殊性,但在为何要下调归属标准、下调至何种程度等问题上,未能给出具有说服力的答案。公职人员未履行其监管职责,应被解读为一种过失共犯行为,其不法部分从属于被监管方的违法犯罪活动。当渎职行为在客观上具有促进或诱发作用时,即可确认其结果不法,实现对结果的缓和归属。监管渎职犯罪在行为不法层面则具备独立性,不法判断的重心应从结果转向行为本身,并借助预见可能性等要素来准确界定注意义务的范围。结合公职人员在安全生产监督管理中的社会角色与履职逻辑,可将注意义务的具体场景细分为三类:开展专项排查整治活动、日常风险排查以及对公众举报的响应。在每种场景下,注意义务的内容及其违反与否的判定标准均有所不同。

关键词: 监管渎职, 玩忽职守罪, 过失共犯, 注意义务

Abstract: The close link between the dereliction of duty by state officials and major safety accidents reveals its significant value in theoretical research.When analyzing the causal relationship between acts of malfeasance and resulting harm, traditional doctrines exhibit limitations, often failing to transcend the attributional level of the causal process.The stance of moderated outcome attribution and remote cause accountability fully acknowledges the particularities of malfeasance, yet it has not provided convincing answers as to why the standards of attribution need to be lowered and to what extent they should be reduced.The failure of public officials to fulfill their supervisory duties should be interpreted as an act of contributory negligence, with its illegality being subordinate to the illegal activities of the supervised party.When the derelict behavior of public officials objectively plays a role in promoting or inducing illegal activities, the illegality of the outcome can be affirmed, thereby achieving a moderated attribution of outcomes and remote cause accountability.The crime of supervisory malfeasance exhibits independence at the level of illegal conduct, and the focus of illegality judgment should shift from the outcome to the act itself, necessitating the use of key elements such as the possibility of foresight to accurately define the scope of the duty of care.In light of the social roles and performance logic of state officials in the supervision and management of work safety, the specific scenarios of the duty of care can be categorized into three types: conducting special rectification activities, routine risk inspection, and responding to public reports.In each scenario, the content of the duty of care and the standards for determining its violation differ.

Key words: Dereliction of Duty in Supervision, Crime of Dereliction of Duty, Accomplice to Negligence, Duty of Care