论刑事司法解释的效力问题——以走私犯罪司法解释中的“禁止”为分析重点-《南京师大学报》（社会科学版）

文章信息/Info

Title:: Retroactivity of Criminal Judicial Interpretations: An Analysis Focusing on Provisions of “Prohibition” in the Judicial Interpretation of the Crime of Smuggling

Keywords:: judicial interpretation; retroactivity; smuggling crime; absolute prohibition; relative prohibition

摘要:: 在中国的立法语境与刑法理论话语体系下,讨论刑法司法解释的溯及力问题,似乎不仅是政治不正确的伪命题,而且也是得不到理论与实践支持的假议题。但如果正视司法解释的现实状况,我们会发现,司法解释的法律续造现象非常普遍。司法解释中将走私犯罪中的“禁止”解释为“包括绝对禁止与相对禁止”就是法律续造情形的体现,有越权解释的嫌疑。走私国家限制进出口的货物、物品中的“禁止”是“相对允许”。对于实际上具有法律续造性质的刑事司法解释而言,承认其刑法渊源地位,明确其在不利于行为人时不可以溯及既往,既符合实际又不违法理,也能最大限度地守住罪刑法定原则的核心价值。

Abstract:: In China’s legislative context and the theoretical discourse system of criminal law, the retroactivity of judicial interpretations of criminal law seems to be not only a false proposition that is politically incorrect, but also a false topic that does not receive any support from both theory and practice. But if we take the issue seriously, we will find that the legal construction caused by judicial interpretations is very common. In the judicial interpretations, the interpretation of the provisions concerning prohibition in the crime of smuggling as “including absolute prohibition and relative prohibition” is an unreasonable legal construction, which is suspected of exceeding authority. The prohibition in the crime of smuggling is “relative permission” and should not be interpreted as “relative prohibition”. As for the criminal justice interpretation having the effect of legal construction, we should acknowledge its status as a part of criminal law and make it clear that it has no retroactivity when it does no good to the parties involved. This is not only in line with the reality but conforms to the law as well. In doing so, the core value of the principle of legally prescribed crimes and punishments can be maintained to the greatest extent.