论特殊防卫的性质

当前，社会各界对正当防卫和防卫限度问题正在开展新一轮反思。针对刑法第20条第3款规定的防卫行为，学界的称谓千差万别，主要有无限防卫（权）、特殊防卫（权）、无过当之防卫、预防性正当防卫等。从语言逻辑关系和刑法条文规范表达的角度看，“特殊防卫”的称谓更符合第3款关于防卫限度的特殊规定。第3款内容在实质侧面受正当防卫认识、防卫限度要件的约制，在形式侧面符合规范用语的体系表达，不是第1、2款内容的拟制性规定，而是提示性规定。防卫的权利性质受权威主义和自由主义的国家范式的影响。在我国弱的权威主义和法律家长主义的影响下，特殊防卫带有明显的义务性质，是权利与义务的统一。

On the Nature of Special Defense

The appellations of "justifiable defense" in Article 20 of the Criminal Law vary widely, including unlimited defense (right), special defense (right), no undue defense, and preventive justifiable defense, etc. However, from the perspective of linguistic logic and normative expression of criminal law provisions, "special defense" is in line with the special provisions on defense limit in Paragraph 3 of Article 20. The content stipulated in Paragraph 3 is still restricted by the understanding of justifiable defense and the elements of defense limit in substance. On the formal side, there is a systematic expression in line with the standard terms between Paragraph 3 and Paragraphs 1 and 2, which is not a tentative provision other than the content stipulated in Paragraphs 1 and 2, but an indicative provision. The "right" nature of defense is influenced by the authoritarian or liberal national paradigm, while China's national governance system pursues weak authoritarianism, and the traditional legal liberalism gradually recognizes and accepts legal paternalism. Under the influence of weak authoritarianism and legal paternalism, the special defense stipulated in Paragraph 3 has an obvious nature of obligation, and is a unity of rights and obligations.