私力救济的功能性分析及其规制-摘要

西安工程大学 硕士学位论文

论文题目： 私力救济的

功能性分析及其规制

姓 名： 王艳丽 指导教师： 阮怀堂 副教授 完成日期： 2010年12月

专 业： 思想政治教育

摘 要

私力救济是指无中立的国家性或社会建制性的组织、机构的介入，依靠或借助私人力量处理矛盾，维护权利的一种救济方式。经过历史和现实的“否定之否定”的私力救济，形式更加多样，范围更加宽泛，成效更加明显，甚至国家机关工作人员也会借助私力救济通过民间悬赏、滥用私刑等合法或违法的形式实现本权。因此，在社会利益多元化的时代，有必要全面认识私力救济的功能，将私力救济行为限制在合法、合理的范畴内。

私力救济从古至今一直有之，其必要性在政治学理论和社会学理论中得到了论证。通过自治功能实现权利的私力救济，以低成本、高效率的优势对公力救济施以弥补、替代，更加全方位地保障权利，解决纠纷和维持社会秩序的和谐。更为重要是，私力救济提供了私权监督公权的新方案，真正实现“权力来自于人民，受人民监督”的要求。可见，私力救济的正当性功能是不言而喻的。同时，该功能的实现离不开对其范围的限定。私力救济的实施必须控制在合法范围内，手段、方式以必要为前提且程度与不法侵害相当，并要兼顾到社会公共利益和公共秩序。然而，私力救济的自主性和无程序性使得它犹如“一匹难以驾驭的野马”，当事人无视界限滥用私力救济暴露了侵犯人权、扰乱社会秩序、破坏传统伦理道德的弊端。如武力进攻型私力救济和冷暴力型私力救济以“暴力”手段严重侵犯人身财产安全和人类道德尊严，而自杀式私力救济以自身生命权为代价寻求救济，给社会带来恐慌和不安。因此，对私力救济的规制显得尤为重要。

以私力救济功能正当性限度为前提，针对其弊端，从法律和道德角度对私力救济进行规制。发挥现有法律已明文规定的部分私力救济行为，如正当防卫、紧急避险、留置权、提存权、抗辩权等的疏导和控制效用。并对需要明确具体行为规范的私力救济行为作以适当提升，使其归入法律规制。而对于法律不应或无法介入的领域加以原则性规定，将法律规则的确定性与法律原则的灵活性结合，确保私力救济的适用有法可依。同时，加强道德建设，提高公民道德素养，使私力救济成为纠纷主体沟通和对话的良好方式。着重强化公权力主体的道德责任意识，禁止国家工作人员借助公权优势超越职权滥用私刑。构建诚信体制，以使私

力救济的道德规制便于具体操作。通过对私力救济的规制，从而消除不必要的社会纠纷和冲突，以确保私力救济在有理有节的限度内实施。

关键词：私力救济、功能正当性、功能局限性、道德规制、法律规制

Functional Analysis and Regulation of Self-Remedy

ABSTRACT

Self-remedy, one of the remedies, means that the individual defends his rights all by himself without putting the case to the court or asking for the agencies’ help. Through the law of das negative des negation, self-remedy has more patterns of manifestation, the range is more widely and the effect is more obvious. Even the public right organization uses it to realize the goal by offering a reward and mobbing law. Hence, it’s necessary to know about the function of self-remedy thoroughly, and make it in the legal and moral way.

Self-remedy has a long history, the existent necessity has been proved in Politics and Sociology. Self-remedy solves the knottiness and keeps a harmonious society with the advantages of lower cost and higher efficiency than the public-remedy by self-rule. The more important thing is self-remedy applies a new scenario to supervise the government, which meets the requirement that “the authority is from people and must be supervised by people”. Then the justifiable function of self-remedy is indubitable. At the same time, the limitation of self-remedy is critical to realize the justifiable function. The implements of self-remedy must be controlled in a legal range, the measures of self-remedy must be indispensable, and the degree of the self-remedy should be equal to the lost without destroying the public interests and order. However, self-remedy is like a wild horse hard to harness. The creditors always ignore the line between legal and illegal to entrench the human rights and destroy the social order and moral principles. The violent self-remedy entrenches the habeas corpus, while the cold violent self-remedy destroys human’s indignity. The suicide takes chaos into the society. Therefore, ruling self-remedy seems quite important. According to the weak points, self-remedy should be put in order from legal and moral angles as a prediction of the limits to the legitimacy of self-help. Bring the existing guidance and control of law into practice, such as self-defense, necessity, lien, deposit and defense right etc. Put those self-remedies which need to be clear and

specific under law. While some aspects which the law should not or can not intervene should be under the regulation of the principle of law to ensure that the applicable legal basis for self-remedy by making the bound of the certainty of the law and the flexibility of the principle. At the same time, strengthening the moral construction and promoting the civic moral attainment make self-remedy into a good way of communication by dealing with the disputes. And strengthening the authority’s moral responsibility is more important in to prohibit the lynching in the public government. The integrity institution is built for the specific operation on the ethical regulation of self-remedy. Through the regulation of self-remedy, implement self-remedy within the rational limits to eliminate those unnecessary social disputes.

Wang Yanli ( Education in Ideology and Politics )

Directed by Associate Professor Ruan Huaitang

Key Words: self-remedy, functional legitimacy, functional limit, moral regulation, legal regulation