Self-defense

Japanese: 正当防衛 - せいとうぼうえい
Self-defense

"An act that is unavoidable in order to defend one's own or another person's rights against an imminent and unlawful infringement" (Article 36, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code). In order for a crime to be established, the acts that meet the constituent elements, especially acts that infringe on the legal interests of others (life, body, property, etc.), must be illegal. Self-defense is the most typical example of a case that is not illegal (grounds for excluding illegality = grounds for excluding illegality).

Self-defense, as it is said to be a natural law, has a long history, and especially since modern times, it has been explicitly defined in the criminal codes of various countries as the most typical case in which no crime is established. However, there have been considerable historical changes in the circumstances and extent to which self-defense is recognized against imminent illegal infringement. In particular, under the liberal view of criminal law in Western Europe in the 19th century, the idea was that defending the rights of others against those who illegally infringe on those rights was also a right (right of self-defense), and self-defense was fairly widely recognized. However, around the end of the 19th century, the normative and authoritarian view of criminal law known as the "old school" (late old school) became dominant, mainly in Germany, and the maintenance of legal order by the state was emphasized, and the idea of ​​restricting the protection and recovery of rights (and even legal interests) by individuals became common. This situation has not changed in Germany after the Second World War or in Japan under its influence. The provision regarding self-defense in Article 36 of Japan's current Criminal Code is modeled after Article 53 of the German Criminal Code of 1871, and its interpretation and application impose strict requirements for the establishment of self-defense.

(1) The word "imminent" in "imminent unlawful infringement" means that the infringement is "imminent or ongoing." Therefore, self-defense to prevent future infringement or to recover rights from past infringement is not recognized. However, for past infringements, "self-help" (or self-help) may be exceptionally recognized as a reason to preclude illegality under stricter requirements than self-defense (however, Japanese precedents rarely recognize self-help). Next, "unlawful infringement" is generally understood to be something that objectively causes actual harm or danger to the rights of others. Therefore, self-defense against the infringer can be recognized even if he or she has no intention or negligence, or is not responsible for his or her own actions (for example, a criminal minor or a person of insanity). However, in the case of so-called self-inflicted infringement, in which the infringement is induced by the intention or negligence of the infringed person, whether self-defense can be recognized, especially in the case of a quarrel, has been debated. On this point, previous court decisions had denied the claim, based on the idea that both parties in a dispute are to blame, but subsequent court decisions have come to accept that there is room for recognition of the claim as long as the requirements for self-defense are met.

(2) Regarding the meaning of "to defend one's own or another's rights," "rights" in this case refer to legal interests. There is debate as to whether national or social legal interests can be included here, and the prevailing view is in favor of this, but there is also a strong view that denies it, on the grounds that self-defense is essentially the state's recognition of the protection of individual rights. In particular, a question is whether the defensive actor is required to have the "intention to defend." Prevailing views and precedents interpret that the intention to defend is necessary to exclude accidental defense (when there is no intention to defend, but objectively it happens to be self-defense) and pretext defense (when an attack on the other party is made under the appearance of self-defense) from self-defense, whereas the view that self-defense may be recognized as long as it objectively meets the requirements for self-defense, since illegality should be judged objectively, is gaining in popularity.

(3) The definition of "an act done out of necessity" is a major issue, as are its requirements and limitations. In this regard, since the counterattack must be necessary (necessity) to preserve rights, it does not have to be the only or best defensive act, but if there is an imbalance between the legal interest to be defended and the infringement of the legal interest of the other party caused by the counterattack, the requirement is not met. For example, an attempt to shoot a thief is an example of this. However, the degree of balance of legal interests required varies depending on how self-defense is understood as mentioned above. If this balance is lost, it is considered an "act that goes beyond the level of defense" as defined in Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, and this case is called "excessive self-defense" and is considered a reason for discretionary reduction or exemption of the sentence.

Meanwhile, while self-defense is a case of "falsely versus legitimate", needless to say, averting necessity is a case of "fair versus legitimate", in other words, a case in which one's own misfortune is shifted to a third party. Therefore, in order for needless to happen to be recognized, it is required that there is no other way (principle of substitution) and that the balance of legal interests is maintained (principle of balancing of legal interests) (Article 37 of the Penal Code on needless to happen).

In addition, the Civil Code states that "a person who, out of necessity, commits an act of harm in order to defend his or her own rights or the legally protected interests of a third party against the tort of another person, shall not be liable for damages" (Civil Code Article 720, Paragraph 1), which is almost the same as the Criminal Code, but differs from the Criminal Code in that it is considered self-defense when an act is committed against a third party in order to avoid an infringement. In this case, the victimized third party may claim damages from the tortfeasor (Civil Code Article 720, Paragraph 1, proviso).

Also, under international law, self-defense against another country is called self-defense.

[Tetsuro Nawa]

[Reference items] | Illegal prevention grounds | Emergency evacuation | Right of self-defense | Self-help | Self-help

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

「急迫不正の侵害に対して、自己又は他人の権利を防衛するため、やむを得ずにした行為」(刑法36条1項)。犯罪が成立するためには、構成要件に該当する行為、とくに他人の法益(生命、身体、財産など)を侵害する行為が違法なものでなければならないが、正当防衛は、違法でない場合(違法性阻却事由=違法阻却事由)のもっとも典型的なものである。

 正当防衛は自然法的なものといわれるように、その歴史は古く、とくに近代以降各国の刑法典において、犯罪が成立しない場合のもっとも典型的なものとして明文で規定されるに至った。ただ、切迫した違法な侵害に対し、どのような場合に、いかなる範囲で正当防衛を認めるかという点になると、歴史的にかなりの変化がみられる。とくに、19世紀の西欧における自由主義的刑法観のもとでは、他人の権利を違法に侵害する者に対し、この権利を防衛することもやはり権利(正当防衛権)であるという考え方がみられ、正当防衛がかなり広く認められた。しかし19世紀末ごろになると、ドイツを中心に「旧派」(後期旧派)とよばれる規範主義的・権威主義的刑法観が支配的となり、国家による法秩序維持が重視され、個人による権利(さらに法益)の保全や回復を制限しようとする考え方が一般的となった。第二次世界大戦後のドイツやこの影響下にある日本でも、このような事情は変わっていない。日本の現行刑法第36条の正当防衛に関する規定は、1871年のドイツ刑法典第53条を範としたものであり、その解釈・運用も正当防衛の成立につき、厳格な要件を課している。

(1)「急迫不正の侵害」の「急迫」とは、侵害が「目前に迫っているか継続中」であることをいう。したがって、将来の侵害を未然に防止するためや過去の侵害から権利を回復するための正当防衛は認められない。ただ、過去の侵害に対しては、「自救行為」(または自力救済)が正当防衛より厳格な要件のもとで、違法性阻却事由として例外的に認められうる(ただ、日本の判例は、自救行為をほとんど認めていない)。次に、「不正の侵害」とは、一般に、客観的にみて、他人の権利に対する実害または危険を生じさせることと解されている。したがって、侵害者に故意や過失がなくてもよいし、責任能力がない場合(たとえば、刑事未成年者や心神喪失者)でも、これに対する正当防衛は認められうる。ただ、侵害が被侵害者の故意または過失により誘発される、いわゆる自招の侵害の場合、とくに喧嘩(けんか)につき正当防衛が認められうるか、が争われてきた。この点につき、かつての判例は、喧嘩両成敗の考え方に従って、これを否定していたが、その後の判例では、正当防衛の要件を満たす限り、その成立を認める余地がある、と解するに至っている。

(2)「自己または他人の権利を防衛するため」の意義につき、この場合の「権利」とは法益をさす。ここに国家法益や社会法益が含まれうるかが争われており、通説はこれを肯定するが、正当防衛は本来、個人の権利保全を国家が承認したものであるという理由から、これを否定する見解も有力である。また、とくに問題となるのは、防衛行為者に「防衛の意思」を要するか、という点である。通説・判例は偶然防衛(防衛の意思はないが、客観的にはたまたま正当防衛にあたる場合)や口実防衛(正当防衛の外観を装って相手方に侵害を加える場合)を正当防衛から除外するために防衛の意思が必要である、と解しているのに対し、違法か否かは客観的に判断されるべきであるから、客観的に正当防衛の要件を満たす限り、正当防衛を認めてもよい、という考え方が、有力になってきている。

(3)「やむを得ずにした行為」の意義につき、その要件と限界が大いに問題となる。この点につき、反撃行為が権利保全のために必要であること(必要性)を要するから、防衛行為として唯一または最善の方法である必要はないが、防衛しようとする法益と反撃行為により相手方に与える法益侵害とがバランスを欠く場合には、その要件を満たさない。たとえば、窃盗犯人を射殺しようとする場合などがそれである。しかし、どの程度の法益上のバランスを要求するかは、前述した正当防衛に対する理解の仕方により、広狭の差が生じる。なお、このバランスを失した場合には、刑法第36条2項のいう「防衛の程度を超えた行為」にあたり、この場合を「過剰防衛」といい刑の任意的減免事由とされる。

 ところで、正当防衛が「不正対正」の関係にあるのに対して、緊急避難は「正対正」の関係、すなわち、自己の災難を第三者に転嫁する場合であるから、緊急避難が認められるためには、他に方法がないこと(補充の原則)および法益のバランスが保たれていること(法益権衡の原則)が要求される(緊急避難につき刑法37条)。

 なお、民法上は、「他人の不法行為に対し、自己又は第三者の権利又は法律上保護される利益を防衛するため、やむを得ず加害行為をした者は、損害賠償の責任を負わない」(民法720条1項)とあり刑法とほぼ同様であるが、侵害を避けるために第三者に対してされた場合にも正当防衛とされる点が、刑法と異なる。この場合、被害者である第三者から不法行為者に対して損害賠償を請求することができる(同法720条1項但書)。

 また、国際法上、他国に対する正当防衛は自衛とよばれる。

[名和鐵郎]

[参照項目] | 違法阻却事由 | 緊急避難 | 自衛権 | 自救行為 | 自力救済

出典 小学館 日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について 情報 | 凡例

<<:  Bremsstrahlung - radiation

>>:  Sedo politics - Sedo politics

Recommend

Fujiwara no Kamatari - Fujiwara no Kamatari

A politician of the 7th century. The founder of t...

Programmer

…The term refers to a film (picture) that is mass...

Amud man

A Neanderthal (archaic man) from the late Pleistoc...

Work regulations - work regulations

These are management rules that stipulate the wor...

Ordzhonikidze

A politician in Russia and the Soviet Union. Born ...

Monapia

…the island of Great Britain in the northern Iris...

Tribulus terrestris; caltrop

It is an annual or biennial plant of the family Tr...

Alekhine, A. (English spelling) AlekhineA

...In the 18th and 19th centuries, the game's...

Huangfu

1880‐1936 Chinese soldier and politician. Born in ...

Dacryocystitis

…However, if it is due to a congenital abnormalit...

Shigenobu Okuma

A politician of the Meiji and Taisho periods. Bor...

Secondment - Transfer

A type of personnel transfer within a company. It...

Methuselah

…Examples of this include the myth of Phoenix and...

The Pillow Book - Pillow Book Picture Scroll

A picture scroll from the late Kamakura period (e...

Aso [town] - Aso

An old town in Namegata County, southeastern Ibara...