摘要
攻擊性緊急避難，是指為了避免緊急危難而攻擊和危難造成無關之第三人的法益。避難行為的效果是否為阻卻違法，則取決於第三人是否有侵害忍受義務。本文認為，侵害忍受義務本質上如果不是一種純粹道德義務，就是一種對應共同體中他人單方恣意資源索求的無正當性要求，因而其無法被整合在法概念之中。在以自由為基礎的法概念之下，一個社會人對於他人只負有不加以侵害的負面義務，而不負有積極協助或犧牲的正面義務。亦即，生活風險原則上應該由個人自己管轄，只有在特殊原因之下才允許移轉管轄。由於在攻擊性緊急避難中，被犧牲者和避難者之間只存有最基本的負面義務關係，因此避難者強制被犧牲者承受屬於自己管轄的風險，已經將被犧牲者工具化而實現了不法。針對此一不法行為，被犧牲者得以主張正當防衛，以回復其外在自由領域的完整性。
並列摘要
Aggressive necessity/emergency means the assault, for the purpose of avoiding state of emergency, on the legal goods of the third-parties, who did not create this state. An aggression could be justified, if the third-party has a duty to endure the assault. In the author's opinion, the duty to help others or the duty to sacrifice for others is by nature a pure moral duty, or an unilateral and arbitrary requirement for resources, which are transferred from an individual to another one in a given community. Such requirement is illegitimate and therefore it could not be deemed as a ”right”. In light of the concept of law based on freedom, a person undertakes only negative duties not to infringe rights of others. He does not bear positive duties to help others. In other words, one should assume the risk of daily life. The risk could be transferred only in rare circumstances. In the case of aggressive necessity/emergency, there is only the basic relationship, namely the negative duties, between the victim and the assailant. The assailant forces the victim to take the risks that should have been attributed to the assailant. The victim actually has been instrumentalized and the offense has thus come to existence. In order to restore the right of the victim, he could resort to self-defense.