浙江警察学院学报

随着我国生态文明建设深入推进，非法捕捞水产品罪之“情节严重”的认定面临新的挑战。当前，“情节严重”的认定具有形式化倾向，实践中长期依赖“双禁”标准。以法益均衡理论为视角进行分析，发现根源在于立法未明确非法捕捞水产品罪生态法益与秩序法益的主次关系与适用边界，导致禁用工具认定陷于“名录主义”并忽略实质危害、禁用方法认定标准模糊不清且难与实质危害匹配、渔获量认定固守形式标准且以市场价格代替生态价值，使得危害相当性判断失灵。据此提出确立生态法益优先、秩序法益工具的法益排序规则。禁用工具认定应从“负面清单”转向“正面清单”,并针对禁用工具进行实质性判断；禁用方法认定明确“相当程度”判断规则并建立危害性评估的统一标准、渔获量认定明确数量标准的差异化适用，并完善价值认定方法。以此重构“情节严重”认定标准，以期实现生态保护与秩序维护的动态平衡。

As China's ecological civilization construction progresses, the determination of “serious circumstances” in the crime of illegal fishing for aquatic products faces new challenges. Currently, the determination of “serious circumstances” tends to be formalized, with a long-term reliance on the “dual prohibition” standard in practice. This paper analyzes from the perspective of legal interest balance theory and finds that the root cause lies in the legislation's failure to clarify the primary and secondary relationships and applicable boundaries between ecological and orderly legal interests in the crime of illegal fishing for aquatic products. This leads to the identification of prohibited tools being trapped in “catalogue-ism” and ignoring substantial harm, the identification standards for prohibited methods being vague and difficult to match with substantial harm, and the identification of catch volume adhering to formal standards and substituting market prices for ecological value, resulting in the failure of harm equivalence judgment. Based on this, it is proposed to establish a legal interest ranking rule that prioritizes ecological legal interests over orderly legal interests. The identification of prohibited tools should shift from a “negative list” to a “positive list”, and substantive judgments should be made for prohibited tools; the identification of prohibited methods should clarify the “substantial degree” judgment rule and establish a unified standard for harm assessment; the identification of catch volume should clarify the differentiated application of quantity standards and improve value identification methods. In this way, the determination standards for “serious circumstances” can be reconstructed, with the aim of achieving a dynamic balance between ecological protection and order maintenance.