As a starting point, the author considers a brief description of the position of illicitness within the theory of crime and the structure of illicitness when questioning the restrictions and the limits of the right of self-defense. Only necessity —suitable measure to safety put and end to the aggression— is legally envisaged, even though proportionality is included to a certain extent when the lesser harmful measure is required. However, doctrine and jurisprudence have developed certain limits to the right of self-defense, especially through the proportionality of the response and the lack of proportionality thereof. A legal basis for these restrictions has been sought through more or less forced interpretations reflecting two possible facts: restrictions are not legally foreseen; and law that is quite vague. Consequently, the author considers that the solution is in the hands of the lawmaker, who is responsible to set a regulation expressly containing those limits.

índice:

A. Cuestiones estructurales: A.1. Estructura del delito. A.2. Estructura de la antijuricidad.— B. Límites de la antijuricidad —la legítima defensa—: B.1. Directrices de derecho positivo: B.1.1. Proporcionalidad. B.1.2. Necesidad. B.1.3. Consecuencia jurídica de la legítima defensa. B.2. Limitaciones de la legítima defensa: B.2.1. Repaso de las restricciones de la legítima defensa. B.2.2. Grupos de casos concretos. B.2.3. Fundamentación de las restricciones de la legítima defensa.— C. Cuestiones metódicas.

Número de descargas: 0