法学家 ›› 2026, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (3): 1-15.

• 专题:建构中国自主的法学知识体系 • 上一篇    下一篇

第三人的自我答责与行为人的结果归责

柏浪涛   

  • 出版日期:2026-05-15 发布日期:2026-05-25
  • 作者简介:*柏浪涛,法学博士,浙江大学光华法学院教授。
  • 基金资助:
    本文系国家社会科学基金重大项目“总体国家安全观视域下网络犯罪治理对策研究”(20&ZD200)的阶段性成果。

Self-Responsibility of a Third Party and Result Attribution to the Actor

BAI Langtao   

  • Online:2026-05-15 Published:2026-05-25
  • About author:Bai Langtao, Ph.D. in Law, Professor of Zhejiang University Guanghua Law School.

摘要: 基于何种理由将结果归责于行为人,是刑法学最重要的课题之一。其基本理由有两项:一是“支配”,二是“义务”。第一,“支配”的反面是负责。故意行为的结果归责理念是意志支配,而意志支配之间具有排斥性,因此在“故意行为+故意行为”的场合,行为人与第三人的答责关系有可能形成排斥关系。第二,“违反义务”的后果是负责。过失行为的结果归责理念是义务违反,而义务违反之间不具有排斥性。同理,在“过失行为+故意行为”的场合,行为人与第三人的答责关系并不必然是排斥关系。结果能否归责于过失行为,有两个判断步骤。(1)在危险制造阶段判断行为的不法性。为此需要考察注意义务的确立与分配。信赖原则只是分配结论,而非分配依据。(2)在危险实现阶段判断结果归责。为此需要考察注意义务的保护范围和实效。一项义务若超出行为人的履行能力(结果预见可能性和避免可能性)则失效。违反失效义务的行为缺乏不法性,因此排除结果归责。

关键词: 禁止溯责, 因果关系, 结果归责, 自我答责, 信赖原则

Abstract: Determining the grounds on which a result is attributed to an actor is one of the most fundamental issues in criminal law.There are two primary justifications: control and duty.First, the opposite of control is responsibility.The attribution of results in cases of intentional conduct is based on the control of will, which is mutually exclusive.Therefore, in scenarios involving “intentional conduct+intentional conduct,” the attribution relationship between the actor and the third party may be exclusive.Second, the consequence of duty violation is responsibility.The attribution of results in cases of negligent conduct is based on duty violation, which is not mutually exclusive.Similarly, in scenarios involving “negligent conduct+intentional conduct,” the attribution relationship between the actor and the third party is not necessarily exclusive.Result attribution in cases of negligent conduct requires a two-step analysis. (1) Risk Creation: Assessing the illegality of the conduct at this stage requires examining the establishment and allocation of duties of care.The principle of reliance is merely a conclusion of duty allocation, not its basis. (2) Risk materialization: Determining result attribution at this stage requires assessing the protective scope and effectiveness of the duty of care.A duty is invalid if it exceeds the actor's capacity to fulfill it, specifically in terms of the foreseeability and avoidability of the result.A violation of an invalid duty lacks illegality and therefore excludes result attribution.

Key words: Prohibition of Retrospective Attribution, Causation, Result Attribution, Self-Responsibility, Principle of Reliance