NECESSARY DEFENSE AS A CONDITION THAT EXCLUDES THE CRIMINALITY OF THE ACT AND ITS PECULIARITIES
Keywords:
act, the exclusion of criminality of the act, the necessary defense, encroachment, attacker, the reality of encroachment, public danger, the rights and legitimate interests of a person, society or the stateAbstract
In this article, the author considered the necessary defense and its features as a condition excluding the criminality of the act. The author notes that the liberalization and improvement of criminal legislation to ensure reliable protection of a person, his rights and freedoms, and legitimate interests are the priorities of Criminal law policy. Another essential characteristic of the institution of necessary defense is the fact that the necessary defense is directed only against socially dangerous encroachments, but the legislator draws attention to the fact that in criminal law, such types of aggression do not differ from each other. This is also covered by presence of some difficulties in assessing the act as committed in a state of necessary defense. In addition, it is indicated that another condition for recognizing the necessary defense justified is the presence of public danger in aggression. Referring to this, the author believes that in cases where there is no aggression, there is no aggressor, and the absence of an aggressor will negate the possibility of using the necessary rights to defense. The article substantiates that protection not only from criminal offenses but also from administrative offenses generates the right of an individual to the necessary defense. The necessary state of defense is not a state that exempts a person from criminal liability, but a state in which the act is not considered a crime in cases of unlawful encroachment by attacking the aggressor by methods permitted by law and causing harm. In this regard, it is substantiated that an act committed in a state of necessary defense, if it does not deviate from its limits, stimulates the protection of the object of the crime with active resistance to socially dangerous encroachments by harming the aggressor.
References
1. Neobhodimaya oborona. II Yuridicheskaya ensiklopediya [Necessary Defense And Legal Encyclopedia]. Ed. B.N. Topornin. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2001, p. 613.
2. Lebedev V.M., Skuratov Yu.I. Kommentariy k ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, 1996, p. 73.
3. Tagansev N.S. Russkoye ugolovnoye pravo [Russian criminal law]. 1994, p. 195.
4. Persev D.V. Ugolovno-pravovyye i kriminologicheskiye problemy neobkhodimoy oborony [Criminal law and criminological problems of necessary defense]. PhD thesis. Kaliningrad, 2004, p. 79.
5. Tkachenko V.I. Neobkhodimaya oborona po ugolovnomu pravu [Necessary defense in criminal law]. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ., 1979, p. 9.
6. Sluskiy I.I. Obstoyatel’stva, isklyuchayushhiye ugolovnuyu otvetstvennost’ [Circumstances excluding criminal liability]. Leningrad, Leningrad University Publ., 1956, p. 46.
7. Merkuryev V.V. Neobkhodimaya oborona: ugolovno-pravovyye i kriminologicheskiye aspekty [Necessary defense: criminal law and criminological aspects]. Abstract of PhD thesis. Ryazan, 1998, p. 11.
8. Bikmashev V.A. Ugolovno-pravovyye aspekty primeneniya ognestrel’nogo oruzhiya sotrudnikami organov vnutrennikh del [Criminal-legal aspects of the use of firearms by employees of internal affairs bodies]. Abstract of PhD thesis. Moscow, 1997, p. 9.
9. Milyukov S.F. Rossiyskoye ugolovnoye zakonodatel’stvo: opyt kriticheskogo analiza [Russian criminal legislation: experience of critical analysis]. 2000, p. 106.
10. Durmanov N.D. Obstoyatel’stva, isklyuchayushhiye obshhestvennuyu opasnost’ i protivopravnost’ deyaniya [Circumstances excluding public danger and wrongfulness of the act]. Moscow, 1961, p. 12.
11. Shavgulidze T.G. Neobkhodimaya oborona [Necessary defense]. Tbilisi, Mesniyereba Publ., 1966, p. 51.
12. Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi Maʼmuriy javobgarlik toʻgʻrisidagi kodeksi. Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi Oliy Kengashining Axborotnomasi [Code of Administrative Responsibility of the Republic of Uzbekistan]. Bulletin of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 1995, no. 3.
13. Rustambayev M.X. Kommentariy k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Respubliki Uzbekistan [Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan]. A common part. Tashkent, Ukituvchi Publ., 2004, p. 341.
14. Ugolovnyy kodeks Respubliki Uzbekistan: nauchno-prakticheskiy kommentariy [Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan: scientific and practical commentary]. Tashkent, Adolat Publ., 1996, p. 71.
15. Yakubov A.S., Kabulov R. et al. Ugolovnoye pravo [Criminal law]. General part. Tashkent, Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan Publ., 2005, p. 362.
16. Rozin N.N. O krayney neobkhodimosti [About extreme necessity]. 1899, p. 21.
17. Ugolovnoye pravo [Criminal law]. A common part. Moscow, Gosyurizdat Publ., 1938, p. 291.
18. Domakhin S.A. Kraynyaya neobkhodimost’ po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu [Urgent necessity in Soviet criminal law]. Moscow, Gosyurizdat Publ., 1955, p. 14.
