“规范隐退论”与“反教义学化”――以法无明文规定的单位犯罪有罪论为例的批判

形式法治与法教义学具有密切关联，后者是保障前者实现的基本工具和技术力量。规范隐退论破坏了法治的最低形式限度，也是对法教义学的背离。刑法领域法无明文规定的单位犯罪有罪论，正是规范隐退论与反教义学化的典型代表。如何处理法无明文规定的单位犯罪，一直以来是我国刑事立法与司法关注的重点，该问题经历了无罪论到有罪论的发展变化与理论争议。然而，有罪论既是对刑法规范的消解，也是对刑法教义学奉现行刑法规范为圭臬之主旨的违背，它破坏了形式法治的安定性，迁就了功利主义却抛弃了规则主义，满足了实用主义但违背了法实证主义。根据中国刑法所采取的大陆法系国家“法人实在论”，既然“法律规定为单位犯罪的应当负刑事责任”的立法模式确立了追究单位刑事责任的刑法规范依据，因而“法律没有规定单位犯罪则不应当负刑事责任”成为必然的结论。在中国法治建设过程中，必须确保形式法治至上，并确立法教义学的基本视角。
The formal rule of law is closely related to legal dogmatics, which is the basic tool and technical force to guarantee the realization of the former. Retrogression of legal norms undermines the minimum formal limits of the rule of law and is also a deviation from legal dogmatics. In the field of criminal law, there is no explicit stipulation on the criminalization of unit crime which is a typical representative of the retrogression of legal norms and anti-dogmatics. How to deal with the unwritten stipulation of unit crime has always been the focus of China’s criminal law legislation and judicature. This problem has experienced the development and change from the theory of innocence to the theory of guilt. However, the theory of criminology is not only a deconstruction of the criminal law norms, but also a violation of the current norms of the criminal legal dogmatics.It undermines the stability of formal rule of law, accommodates utilitarianism while abandons rule-ism, and satisfies pragmatism while violates legal positivism. According to the “corporate realism” adopted by the continental law system countries in China‘s criminal law, since the legislative model of “the unit that committed a crime by law shall bear criminal responsibility” has established the legal basis for the investigation of the unit’s criminal responsibility, so “the unit that didn’t commit a crime by law shall not bear criminal responsibility” has become the inevitable conclusion. In the process of China’s rule of law construction, we must ensure that formal rule of law is paramount and establish the basic perspective of legal dogmatics.