【作者】 刘瑛瑛；

【导师】 卢有学；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 在国际刑法中,对于“执行上级命令”问题,随着历史的发展,逐渐确立了“执行上级命令不免责原则”,而在我国刑法理论中对“执行上级命令”很少提及。在刑法总则中仅仅把正当防卫和紧急避险作为法定的排除社会危害性的行为,而“执行上级命令”只是作为一个法外的排除社会危害性的行为,关于“执行上级命令”的责任模式、条件等的研究甚少,以至于在实践中很难用统一的标准来衡量“执行上级命令”免责与否。因此本文将联系国内外刑法理论对此作以探讨。“执行上级命令不免责原则”在国际法中的确立和完善经历了一个复杂的过程:第一次世界大战之前,执行上级命令可以免责;“莱比锡审判”后,国际法上开始承认上级命令不免责原则;《纽伦堡宪章》标志着上级命令不免责原则的确立;国际刑事法院及其《规约》代表着上级命令不免责原则的完善。“执行上级命令”在各国国内刑法中的规定各有不同,在我国刑法总则中只明确规定了正当防卫、紧急避险两种法定的排除社会危害性的行为,而对于执行上级命令没有明文规定。对于“执行上级命令”的正当化路径有两种:一种是作为违法性阻却事由而合法化,二是作为责任阻却事由而正当化。执行上级命令行为的责任模式有绝对责任原则、条件责任原则及混合责任原则。绝对责任原则的含义是指下级在执行上级下达给他的命令而实施了违法犯罪行为,在任何情况下,下级都不能因为“执行上级命令”这个理由要求免除其刑事责任,但法院在对被告进行量刑时,可以在考虑其他减刑因素的同时,将上级命令作为其中一个理由纳入考虑减刑的因素。而条件责任原则与绝对责任原则不同,它的含义包括:下级在有些情况下,可以在庭审中主张自己所实施的行为是属于执行上级命令的行为,因此法庭应该以此为理由免除其刑事责任,但是这有例外,比如被告人作为下级,知道或者应当知道上级给其发布的命令是违法的,或者上级发布的命令违法性非常明显,那么下级将执行上级命令作为免责的抗辩理由法院将不会接受。混合责任原则同时采用绝对责任原则和条件责任原则,这种模式又可分为两种情况,一是根据行为人是否属于本国公民而决定适用哪个原则,二是根据涉嫌犯罪的性质进行区分。学术界对于执行上级命令行为正当化的条件有很多不同的观点,笔者认为执行上级命令行为正当化需要符合以下条件:命令发布者特定;命令发布的形式和程序合法;执行的命令客观上的合法性;主观善意;必须在命令规定的事项范围内执行命令。更多还原

【Abstract】 For "the implementation of superior orders" problem in international criminal law, with the development of history, It gradually established the "non-exemption principle of superior orders implementation," but it is rarely mentioned in China’s criminal law theory. Only self-defense and emergency hedge are set as legal exclusion of social harmful behavior in General provisions of the Penal Code, while "the implementation of superior orders" is only believed as extrajudicial behavior. Research on the model and condition for "the implementation of superior orders" is so few that it is difficult to use unified standards to measure the "implementation of superior orders". Therefore, this article will be a study of criminal law at home and abroad.The "non-exemption principle of superior orders implementation" is mainly from international law. It has been a long and complex process since its emergence and development. The implementation of superior orders was exempted before the World WarⅠ; "non-exemption principle of superior orders implementation" was recognized in the international law after "Leipzig trials" but it was established after the issuance of“Nuremberg Charter" and further improved by the International Criminal Court and its Statute.The specifications of“implementation of superior orders" is different from countries in civil criminal law. The general provisions of the Criminal Code specifies that only self-defense and emergency hedge are thought as two kinds of legal social harmful behavior, but for the execution of superior orders is not expressly stipulated in writing . There are two ways to prove it legal: one is taking no account of illegal factor, the other is taking no account of responsibility factor.Responsibility for the implementation of higher order mode of behavior the principle of absolute liability, the principle of responsibility, and mixed conditions, the principle of responsibility. The meaning of the principle of absolute liability is subordinate to his higher authorities in the implementation of the orders carried out criminal acts, in any case, the subordinates can not because "the implementation of the superior orders" for this reason, claim exemption from criminal responsibility, but the court on the defendant for determining the sentence, you can consider other mitigating factors, while superior orders will be taken into account as one of the reasons a mitigating factor. And the conditions are the responsibility of principle and the principle of absolute liability is different from its meaning include: lower, in some cases, you can stand trial in the implementation of his own behavior is part of the implementation of the behavior of superior orders, so for this reason the court should be exempted from criminal liability , but there are exceptions, such as the defendant as a junior, knew or should have known to their superiors orders issued was illegal, or illegal orders issued by superiors was readily apparent, then the lower will be the implementation of superior orders defense as a defense the court will not accept it. Mixed at the same time the principle of liability and conditions of use of the principle of absolute liability principle of responsibility, this model can be divided into two situations, one of the conduct, whether they belong to the citizens to decide which principles apply to the second is based on a distinction between the nature of the suspect.The academic community has many different opinions on the conditions of implementation of superior orders, I believe that to justify the implementation of acts of superior orders need to meet the following requirements: a command issued by a particular person; the form and procedures are legal; the order is objectively legal; subjectively good faith; implementation of order must be must be within the scope of matters specified.更多还原