涉正当防卫案件在裁判过程中一直存在大众常识话语与法律专业话语的悖论，这是此类案件中久决难下的问题。这一悖论的解决可以尝试从形式和实质两个层面展开。形式层面，可构建证明责任分配规则以解决正当防卫事实的证明难题。正当防卫及关联行为的证明是一种一体化标准之下的分层证明模式。其一，涉正当防卫案件要先经过正当防卫的证明程序，围绕正当防卫要件展开违法性阶层的证明责任分配；其二，当控诉方超出合理怀疑地否定了正当防卫一个以上的要件，排除正当防卫的成立，进入关联行为的证明程序。实质层面，应将“社会公众的一般认知”引入正当防卫的法律判断，实现法理与情理的良性互动，以应对正当防卫的实体判断难题。

正当防卫, 关联行为, 证明责任分配, 分层证明模式, 法理与情理

There has been a paradox between the discourse of common sense and the discourse of legal expertise in the adjudication of cases involving justifiable defense, which is a long-standing problem in such cases. The solution to this paradox can be attempted from the formal and substantive levels. At the formal level, rules for allocating the burden of proof can be constructed to address the difficulty of proving justifiable defense facts. Proof of justifiable defense and related behaviors is a layered proof model under the integration standard. First, cases involving justifiable defense should first go through the proof of justifiable defense procedure, around the elements of justifiable defense to carry out the distribution of the burden of proof of the illegality stratum. Second, when the prosecution has disproved more than one element of justifiable defense beyond reasonable doubt, the establishment of justifiable defense is excluded and the procedure of proving related behaviors proceeds. At the substantive level, it can be sought to resolve the differences between professional discourse and public discourse in order to deal with the difficulties in the substantive judgment of justifiable defense. One way to address this is to introduce the “general cognition of the public” into the legal judgment of justifiable defense, and realize the benign interaction between jurisprudence and moral reason.

justifiable defense, related behaviors, allocation of the burden of proof, layered proof model,  jurisprudence and moral reason