|
Dispute Settlement 2023
浅析刑法中的类推解释和扩张解释
|
Abstract:
由于刑法文本存在一定的局限性,因此在司法实践中常常使用各种法律解释方法以正确适用刑法,扩张解释也是其中之一。而扩张解释方法使用不当则容易变成罪刑法定原则所禁止的类推解释,因此要区分类推解释与扩张解释。区分两者比较理想的是双重标准说,以刑法文本范围和国民预测可能性为标准,超出刑法文本范围和国民预测可能性的是类推解释,反之,为扩张解释。
Given the inherent limitations within criminal law texts, a variety of legal interpretive methodologies are frequently employed in judicial practice to ensure the accurate application of criminal law. Extensive interpretation stands as one of these methodologies. However, the improper application of the extensive interpretation approach can easily transform into an analogical interpretation, which is proscribed by the principle of legality in criminal law. Hence, a clear demarcation between analogical and extensive interpretation becomes essential. The dual standard theory provides an optimal means of differentiation, utilizing the scope of criminal law texts and the anticipatory potential of the citizenry as benchmarks. Interpretations that surpass the boundaries set by criminal law texts and citizens’ anticipatory potential are categorized as analogical interpretations, while those that remain within these confines are considered extensive interpretations.
[1] | 张明楷. 外国刑法纲要[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2020. |
[2] | [德]考夫曼. 法律哲学[M]. 刘幸义, 等, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2004. |
[3] | 龚振军. 论扩张解释与类推解释的区分及类推解释的逻辑证立路径[J]. 浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 44(6): 68-82. |
[4] | 高铭暄, 马克昌. 刑法学[M]. 第8版. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2007. |
[5] | [日]川端博. 刑法总论[M]. 东京: 弘文堂出版社, 2002. |
[6] | 刘明祥. 论刑法学中的类推解释[J]. 法学家, 2008(2): 61-68. |
[7] | 任跃进. “文字可能的含义”: 扩张解释与类推解释界分范式研究——基于德日比较视角展开[J]. 河北法学, 2021, 39(3): 149-163. |
[8] | 曾根威彦. 刑法学基础[M]. 黎宏, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2005. |
[9] | 行江. 试论刑法学中类推解释与扩大解释的区别[J]. 甘肃政法学院学报, 2007(1): 146-152. |