On Conflict Of Duties In Criminal Law

Duty conflict is an important issue in the study of criminal law.Relevant research on perfecting the conflict of obligations can improve the theoretical system of criminal law,and effectively guide practice on helping the actor who has multiple obligations in a dilemma as well.The article focuses on the related issues involved in the theory of duty conflict along the logical context of what a duty conflict is,why it can prevent the violation of law,and how law applies in practice.This article is divided into three parts:The first part focuses on the basic definition of conflict of obligations.This section explores on the "obligations" in the conflict of obligations,the types of conflicts between obligations,and the conditions for establishing the conflict of obligations.As for the "obligation" in the conflict of obligations,the scholars still have disputes on "whether the theoretical obligation conflict is a true conflict of obligations" and "whether moral obligation is the source obligation of the conflict of obligations".Based on the limited nature of legislation,a unified and non-contradictory legal order is just a proper state.In reality,conflicts of laws and conflicts of obligations set by laws still exist.It is important to affirm logical conflicts of obligations.As for the moral duty can be conflict of obligations,because acknowledged moral obligation is not only as not in violation of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment and protect the legal interests,admit moral obligations in China has a social basis and domestic and foreign existing related judicial precedents and legislation precedent,so it is necessary to moral obligation as a conflict of obligations.At the same time,the scope of "obligations" should also be limited: moral obligations are recognized only at the level of significant value,"obligations" must be legal.Obligations cannot be caused by the actor,and there is no legal order of performance between obligations.Conflicts of obligations include conflicts between obligations as obligations,conflicts between inaction obligations,and conflicts between obligations as acts and omissions.Because the conflict between inaction obligations only exists in the teaching case without the support of examples and does not constitute an obligation conflict situation,the actor can perform two obligations at the same time without any action,so the conflict between inaction obligations is not a true conflict.Only conflicts between obligations of duty and conflicts between obligations of action and inaction are true conflicts of obligations.The conditions for the establishment of a conflict of obligations are: multiple obligations,the actor's limited ability to perform,and violations of other legal obligations.The basic definition of conflict of obligations is: when an actor faces several obligations but does not have the ability to perform them at the same time,the performance of one party's obligations will necessarily violate his legal obligations.The second part mainly discusses the legal nature and theoretical basis of the conflict of obligations.The academic community generally believes that duty conflict is a legitimate cause that can help criminals who are in situations of duty conflict.However,there are still disputes on what kind of justification of obligation conflict and what is the theoretical basis for the justification of obligation conflict.What are the justifications for the conflict of obligations? There are different doctrines,such as the existence of constitutive elements,the illegality,and the liability.It is worth noting that,as far as the performance of a single obligation is concerned,the actor has the ability to perform,and the non-performance by the actor of the obligation complies with the constituent elements of the crime of inaction,and the constituent elements are not reasonable.Responsibility blocking says that skipping the judgment of illegality directly obstructs liability on the grounds that it does not have the possibility of expectation.It does not explain the essence of illegality and is not reasonable.The dichotomy theory has the same problem as the responsibility theory,that is,it cannot be explained that the actor's performance of an obligation in the face of a conflict of obligations of the same value can prevent the illegal basis,and it is not reasonable.Compared with the above doctrine,the theory of illegal obstruction is more reasonable.It holds that the essence of illegality is an infringement of legal interests.In the event of a conflict of obligations,the performer has fulfilled high-value obligations or equivalent-value obligations.High-value legal interests are protected or no more legal interests are infringed,so illegality is blocked.What is the theoretical basis for the conflict of obligations preventing the illegality? There are theoretically different viewpoints such as the legal interest measurement,the purpose theory,and the social equivalence theory.Because the measuring purpose theory in the purpose theory is no different from the legal interest theory,there is no need for independent existence,and the standard of social equivalence is vague.The standard of doctrine of legal interest measurement is clear.Firstly,the essence of the violation is legal violation,if it does not cause legal violation,it is not illegal.Second,legal violation reflects the measurement of legal interest.It considers that the highvalue legal benefit is protected according to the "principle of superior interests" It is not illegal to perform the “absence of interest principle” to perform the obligation of equal value and to perform one of the non-measurable obligations.Therefore,the legal interest measure can provide a theoretical basis for obstructing illegality for the performance of high value obligations,equal value obligations or alternative obligations by actors in conflict of obligations.Therefore,the legal interest measurement can provide the legal basis for obstructing the illegality of the behavior of high-value obligations and equal-value obligations for the actors in conflict of obligations.The third part mainly discusses the judicial application of the conflict of obligations.This section discusses the measurement of the value of the obligation and the order of performance,the application of the conflict of obligations in an emergency state,the application of the conflict of obligations in a wrong state,and the possible judicial paths to apply the conflict of obligations.On the individual level,the value of life legal benefits should be higher than free legal benefits,and free legal benefits are higher than property legal benefits.At the collective level,collective legal benefits should be followed over individual legal benefits,and high-level collective legal benefits should be over The value rank of highlevel collective legal benefits.Judgment of the order of performance between obligations should refer to the comprehensive performance rules composed of three levels: legal value,legal punishment,and guarantor status.The standard for handling conflicts of obligations is to perform high-value obligations or perform equal-value obligations when conflicts of legally-measured obligations are fulfilled;to fulfill one of these obligations when conflicts of non-measureable legal-interest obligations are met.Obligation conflicts actually exist in practice,especially in emergency situations such as special times and special causes.Obligation conflicts in special periods are manifested during the "new-type coronary pneumonia" epidemic,and there are obligations conflicts in information early warning,epidemic prevention and treatment.Obligation conflicts under special causes are manifested as the conflicts of obligations encountered by special professional subjects when performing tasks and the conflicts of obligations encountered by ordinary subjects when performing rescue.The types of errors in the conflict of obligations include errors of recognition and errors of performance.Cognitive errors are divided into imaginary obligation conflicts and occasional obligation conflicts.Imaginary obligation conflicts do not prevent illegal but can prevent intentional.In the occasional conflict of obligations,because the performance of the actor objectively meets the performance requirements of the conflict of obligations,the law is blocked.Performance errors are divided into two situations: the actor's performance of low-value obligations and the actor's non-performance.At this time,the actor's behavior is unobstructed but illegal,and the actor's failure to perform high-value obligations is a crime of inaction.Under the current law,the judicial application of the conflict of obligations is worthy of discussion.Since the current criminal law does not stipulate the conflict of obligations as a justified cause,the conflict of obligations as a cause of super-regulation should be prevented in combination with the existing legal system.The system of "But" clauses and Emergency hedging are judicial path that worth applying or by analogy.In addition to obstructing but violating the law,in the case of performing low-value obligations,because the perpetrator also has the "dilemma" option,it can also be combined with the sentencing circumstances in the criminal law to punish the perpetrator.