运动员使用兴奋剂行为入罪的法律障碍及突破
详细信息    查看全文 | 推荐本文 |
  • 英文篇名:The Obstacles for Incriminating Athletes ' Use of Doping and Its Solutions
  • 作者:杨春然
  • 英文作者:YANG Chunran;Law Department, China University of Petroleum;
  • 关键词:运动员 ; 兴奋剂 ; 入罪 ; 法益保护原则 ; 犯罪化 ; 危害还原论
  • 英文关键词:athlete;;doping;;incriminate;;the concept of rechtgut;;criminalizing;;harm-reductionist approach
  • 中文刊名:STYB
  • 英文刊名:Journal of Shanghai University of Sport
  • 机构:中国石油大学(华东)法学系;
  • 出版日期:2018-03-30
  • 出版单位:上海体育学院学报
  • 年:2018
  • 期:v.42;No.207
  • 基金:教育部人文社会科学研究项目(17YJA820038)
  • 语种:中文;
  • 页:STYB201802003
  • 页数:13
  • CN:02
  • ISSN:31-1005/G8
  • 分类号:22-34
摘要
将运动员为了提高比赛成绩而使用兴奋剂的行为入罪,在实体法上有悖于法益保护原则或伤害原则,易陷入家长主义或伦理主义"泥潭";在程序法上,还会与审(裁)判独立原则、不得强迫自证其罪原则和禁止双重危险原则发生冲突。学界提出危害还原论,主张将使用兴奋剂的行为合法化;然而,这种观点忽视了未成年运动员的健康保护问题。认为:未成年人的健康权已以法益的形式获得刑法的承认,故可构成将使用兴奋剂的行为入罪的正当化的根据;由此建构的刑法禁止,只能处罚精英运动员和高水平运动员,普通运动员使用兴奋剂的,仅可基于未遂犯的理论受到禁止,但不宜于刑罚处罚。
        The fact that the criminal law prohibits the doping conducts has many difficulties,because it not only violates the concept of rechtsgut or the harm principle and comes into the parentalism or moralism,but also conflicts the procedural principles in the aspects of the unit of order law,the privilege against self incrimination and prohibition against double jeopardy. Therefore,the harm-reductionist approach permits to use certain performance enhancing drugs(PEDs),but it neglected the minor athletes' health. In fact,due to the minors' health being recognized as the rechtsgus with the penal law,it can justify the criminalization of anti-doping act. However,the prohibition can only punish the athlete elite and top-level athletes who use the PEDs,while the ordinary cannot be punishable because of the theory of aborted crime.
引文
[1]WALRAVE B N O,KOCH L J N.Judgment of the court of 24 October 1974[EB/OL].(1974-12-12)[2018-01-22].http://curia.europa.eu/juris/show Pdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30db14652befbfbd422c82a2d73ddbc6d818e34Ka xi Lc3q M b40Rch0Saxu M a310?text=&docid=88802&page Index=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=399037
    [2]High Court of Justice.Edwards v(1)British athletic federation(2)international amateur athletic federation[EB/OL].(1997-07-28)[2018-01-22].http://heinonline.org/HOL/Landing Page?handle=hein.journals/eurlaw reo1&div=48&id=&page
    [3]MCKENZIE C.The use of criminal justice mechanisms to combat doping in sport[Z/OL].(2017-08-31)[2018-01-22].http://w w w.commonlii.org/au/journals/Sports Law e Jl/2007/2.pdf
    [4]KORNBECK J.The EU,the revision of the world antidoping code and the presumption of innocence[J].International Sports Law Journal,2016,15(3):172-196.
    [5]KARLIN S.Germany’s anti-doping legislation[J].World Sports Advocate,2017(5):8-9
    [6]ROBERTS P.A progress report on English experience of criminal law reform[J].Buffalo Criminal Law Review,2001(5):173-253
    [7]FEINBERG J.Moral limits of the criminal law[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1989:12-14
    [8]LOWTHER J.Criminal law regulation of performance enhancing drugs:Welcome formalisation or knee jerk response,in drugs and doping in sport:Socio-legal perspectives[M].London:Cavendish,2000:225-242
    [9]Sumner C.The spirit of sport:The case for criminalisation of doping in the UK[J].International Sports Law Journal,2017,16(3):217-227
    [10]杨春然.伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质[J].中国刑事法杂志,2010(2):33-42
    [11]Stuckenberg,C F.The constitutional deficiencies of the German rechtsgutslehre[J].O1ati Socio-Legal Series,2013(3):31-41
    [12]HYRY H.Liberalism and legal moralism:The HartDevlin debate and beyond[J].Ratio Juris,1991(4):202-218
    [13]贾健.滥用兴奋剂行为犯罪化研究[J].武汉体育学院学报,2015(7):46-50
    [14]张明楷.刑法学[M].4版.北京:法律出版社,2011:68
    [15]蔡彦敏.从O.J.辛普森刑、民事案件评析美国诉讼制度[J].中外法学,1998(3):110-112
    [16]CAS.CAS 2013/A/319 Fenerbahce SK v.UEFA[EB/OL].(1993-03-15)[2018-01-22].http://sennferrero.com/descargaspdf/CAS-2013-A-3139.pdf
    [17]Mertcan IPEK.International Skating Union—court of arbitration for sport at the target[EB/OL].(2015-01-15)[2018-01-22].http://dergipark.gov.tr/dow nload/article-file/274362
    [18]杨春然.论兴奋剂处罚的归责原则与WADC目的的冲突及协调[J].武汉体育学院学报,2017(3):45-55
    [19]TARASTI L.Source doping and anti-doping policy in sport:Ethical,legal and social perspectives[M].London:Routledge,2011:18
    [20]CAS.2008/A/1583 sport Lisboa e Benfica futebol SAD v.UEFA&FC Porto futebol SAD[EB/OL].(2008-09-15)[2018-01-22].http://w w w.centrostudisport.it/PDF/TAS_CAS_ULTIM O/9.pdf
    [21]CAS.Arbitration CAS 2011/O/2422 United States Olympic Committee(USOC)v.Internatinal Olympic Committee(IOC)[2011].[EB/OL](2011-10-04)[2018-01-22].https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/2422.pdf
    [22]European Court of Human Rights.Sergey Zolotukhin v.Russia[GC]-14939/03[EB/OL].(2009-02-10)[2018-01-22].https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=002-1693&filename=002-1693.pdf&TID=thkbhnilzk
    [23]CALABRESI G,MELANED A D.Property rules,liability rules,and inalienability:One view of the cathedral[J].Harvard Law Review,1972,85:1089-1128.
    [24]杨春然.刑法的边界研究[M].北京:中国公安大学出版社,2013:183-185.
    [25]HAUGEN K K.The performance-enhancing drug game[J].Journal of Sports Economics,2004(5):67-86.
    [26]ANDERSON J.Doping,sport and the law:Time for repeal of prohibition?[J].International Journal of Law in Context,2013(9):135-159
    [27]Revealed in a documentary by Hajo Seppel in 2016referred to online[EB/OL].(2016-06-08)[2018-01-22].http://w w w.theguardian.com/
    [28]CAROLAN E.The new WADA code and the search for a policy justification for anti-doping rules[J].Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertain Law,2006,16(1):1-43
    [29]RENDELL M.The death of Marco Pantani[M].London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson,2006:158-179
    [30]GRAYSON E,IOANNIDIS G.Drugs,health and sporting values,in drugs and doping in sports:Socio-legal perspectives[M].London:Cavendish Publishing,2001:255-268
    [31]杨春然.论法教义学视角下的最后手段原则的规范构成及适用[J].中国刑事法杂志,2017(5):3-29
    [32]Fraud,bribery and money laundering offences definitive guideline[EB/OL].(2014-10-02)[2018-01-22].https://w w w.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/w p-content/uploads/Fraud_bribery_and_money_laundering_offences_-_Definitive_guideline.pdf
    [33]杨春然.如何学好刑法——法教义学视角下的刑法规范的逻辑[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2014(4):90-98
    [34]杨春然.欺诈:违约、侵权抑或犯罪?——以民刑边界理论为中心展开[J].刑法论丛,2017(1):276-307
    [35]STUCKENBERG C F.The constitutional deficiencies of the German rechtsgutslehre[J].O1ati Socio-Legal Series,2013(3):31-41

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址:北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编:100083

电话:办公室:(+86 10)66554848;文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新:66554700