Discussion Of Conflict Of Obligations In Criminal Law

Conflict of obligations in criminal law refers to the situation where the perpetrator is confronted with two or more incompatible obligations at the same time and can only fulfil some of them and has to abandon the others.The conflict of obligation only refers to the situation where the imperative obligation conflicts with the imperative obligation,and the situation where the prohibitive obligation conflicts with the prohibitive obligation and the imperative obligation conflicts with the prohibitive obligation can be resolved by applying the relevant provisions of self-defence or emergency hedge.The source of the obligation in a conflict of obligation should be judged substantively,i.e.it should be an obligation that involves a criminal law norm and will give rise to a negative evaluation of the criminal law,and the source of the obligation in a conflict of obligation should be consistent with the source of the obligation in a crime of omission.The systemic status of conflicts of obligation should be discussed in the context of a three-tier system of criminal composition,and it is reasonable to consider conflicts of obligation as a supra-statutory deterrent to the commission of offences.When a conflict of duty and an emergency avoidance are competing,the priority should be given to a codified emergency avoidance without resorting to a supra-statutory conflict of duty.The purpose theory,the social equivalence theory and the right to emergency theory are all difficult to use as the substantive basis for a conflict of obligations.Although a conflict of obligations can be included in the right to emergency system,the right to emergency does not provide a substantive basis for a conflict of obligations.The weighing of interests theory reveals the essence of a conflict of obligation and is more appropriate as a substantive basis for a conflict of obligation because it maintains consistency in jurisprudence.In order to determine whether a conflict of obligation under criminal law has been established,it is necessary to follow the line of development of the act,first to determine the creation of the conflict of obligation state,and then to determine the establishment of the conflict of obligation act.In order to establish a conflict of obligations under criminal law,it is necessary to consider two aspects:the"obligation" and the "conflict state".Firstly,the "obligation" of a conflict of obligation must be an obligation to act and the failure to fulfil the obligation to act will give rise to a negative assessment of the criminal law.Secondly,a "state of conflict" requires the objective existence of several obligations at the same time,of which the perpetrator can only fulfil some,and the creation of the state of conflict cannot be attributed to the perpetrator’s conduct.The judgement of conflicting obligations includes the judgement of objective and subjective elements,and the order of judgement should be adhered to from objective to subjective.On the one hand,the objective constitutive element requires the actor to have made the right choice in the face of the conflicting obligations and,on this basis,to have achieved full performance of the obligations.On the other hand,a conflict of obligation does not require a subjective element,i.e.the actor does not need to have the knowledge of the conflict and the will to perform it;in other words,the conflict of obligation is a purely objective cause of the violation.