Concept and Principles of Justifying Duty Conflict
The justifying duty conflict is a criminal law justification principle. It refers to situations in which a person is faced with the impossibility of fulfilling two (or more) equally ranked legal duties at the same time, resulting in the fulfillment of one duty inevitably leading to the violation of another legal duty. In such a conflict, the breach of one of the duties is not unlawful but justified, provided that the duties are equivalent and incompatible.
Terminological Classification
The justifying duty conflict is of central importance for the overall justification system in German criminal law. It is recognized as an unwritten ground for justification. The principle of this constellation is the so-called ‘justifying dilemma,’ in which a perpetrator consciously violates one duty in order to fulfill another of equal urgency.
Legal Principles and Systematics
Distinction from Other Grounds of Justification
The justifying duty conflict must be distinguished from other grounds of justification, such as necessity (§ 34 StGB). While necessity typically involves weighing goods of differing value and interests (for example, material assets vs. life) against each other, the justifying duty conflict features equivalence of the affected duties.
A typical example is the situation of a doctor who must treat several seriously injured persons at the same time but, due to capacity constraints, cannot help all of them immediately.
Systematic Position in Criminal Law
In dogmatic structure, the justifying duty conflict is one of the grounds for justification to be addressed within the assessment of unlawfulness in criminal law. It is examined as an unwritten ground for justification between the elements of an offense and culpability.
Requirements for a Justifying Duty Conflict
1. Existence of Multiple Duties to Act
First, at least two legally defined duties to act must exist. Such duties may arise from laws, contracts, official or professional obligations, or from general legal principles.
2. Equivalence of Duties
The duties must be of equal rank and not subject to any hierarchical prioritization. Equivalence is crucial, as only then does a duty conflict exist; otherwise, a weighing of interests or specification of duties would be appropriate.
3. Impossibility of Simultaneous Fulfillment of Duties
A duty conflict only exists if it is objectively and legally impossible to fulfill all the affected duties at the same time. The impossibility need not necessarily be physical but can also be of a legal nature.
4. Appropriate and Reasonable Weighing of Interests
The person acting must not negligently neglect any of the affected duties. Instead, they are required to weigh the interests to the best of their knowledge and belief and to make a decision that appears appropriate under all the circumstances of the individual case.
Legal Consequences of a Justifying Duty Conflict
If a justifying duty conflict arises, then the fulfillment of one duty and the neglect of the other is not an offense or is at least justified. The person acting is then not acting unlawfully and is therefore not liable to prosecution.
Example from Practice
A classic practical case is the situation of a firefighter who must decide during a residential fire whether to save a single trapped person or to assist in the rescue of several injured persons, while both rescue actions cannot occur simultaneously.
Distinction from Justifying Duty Competition and Excusing Duty Conflict
Justifying Duty Competition
Justifying duty competition exists when several duties apply, but a hierarchical order or prioritization can be derived from normative provisions. In this case, there is no duty conflict because the legal system itself prescribes a solution.
Excusing Duty Conflict
The excusing duty conflict must be distinguished from the justifying duty conflict. It applies when the person acting must choose between several duties and exoneration from criminal responsibility occurs for reasons of excuse, not justification. In such cases, the unlawfulness remains, but the personal blame is removed.
Significance in Case Law and Literature
The justifying duty conflict is widely recognized both by the highest courts and in academic legal literature. Nevertheless, there are ongoing discussions about the exact dogmatic classification, particularly regarding the precise definition of the equivalence of the conflicting duties and the standard of weighing by the decision-maker.
Summary and Evaluation
The justifying duty conflict is an important legal mechanism by which criminal law responds to atypical situations of conflict between equally ranked legal interests and duties to act. If a person is in such a situation, the non-fulfillment of a duty under certain conditions exceptionally justifies the conduct and precludes unlawfulness. The precise assessment in each individual case requires a comprehensive evaluation of the relevant facts and careful consideration of the competing duties.
Relevant Literature
- Roxin, Claus: Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Volume 1, 5th Edition, 2020
- Joecks, Wolfgang: Studienkommentar StGB, 14th Edition, 2024
- Fischer, Thomas: Strafgesetzbuch, Commentary, 71st Edition, 2024
- Schönke/Schröder: Strafgesetzbuch, Commentary, 30th Edition, 2019
See also
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the requirements for a justifying duty conflict?
For a justifying duty conflict to exist in the legal sense, several requirements must be met. First, at least two equally ranked legal duties must be present which, while individually possible to fulfill, cannot both be satisfied at the same time in the concrete situation without violating one of the duties. This constitutes a genuine conflict of norms. Furthermore, the conflict must be unavoidable; in other words, the person acting must not have intentionally created the situation, but it must have arisen due to external circumstances. In addition, it must be weighed whether, in the specific case, an actual breach of duty exists or whether the fulfillment of one duty should take precedence due to a legitimate interest. A proper legal assessment also requires that no more specific special rules— such as justifying states of necessity or official duties with clear instructions—apply, which must first be examined.
What are the legal consequences of a justifying duty conflict?
In the case of a justifying duty conflict, the unlawfulness of the act leading to the non-fulfillment of one of the conflicting duties ceases to exist. This means that the person acting is not criminally or civilly liable for the breach of duty, provided the requirements for the conflict are met. No unlawful act occurs because the law fundamentally does not require a person to do the impossible or to hold them liable for not fulfilling a duty which cannot be fulfilled at the same time. In criminal proceedings, this regularly results in exclusion of criminal liability; in civil law contexts, liability can also be excluded. Similarly, a disciplinary measure is usually ruled out, provided that the conflicting duties were properly considered. It is important that the person acts on the duty which, considering the interests involved and the legislature’s valuation, takes precedence.
How does a justifying duty conflict differ from justifying necessity?
Although both concepts can justify conduct that would otherwise be unlawful, there are essential differences. Justifying necessity (for example under § 34 StGB) allows a balancing of conflicting interests, even if the interests of different persons are involved, and usually not only equally ranked legal duties are affected but also goods of differently valued legal interests. By contrast, the justifying duty conflict relates exclusively to the impossibility of fulfilling two equally ranked, personal duties. While justifying necessity is explicitly codified, the justifying duty conflict is a general legal principle recognized through interpretation in many areas of law—especially in criminal, civil, and administrative law.
In which areas of law is the justifying duty conflict important?
The justifying duty conflict applies in various areas of law. In criminal law, it often arises for public officials or doctors who, faced with conflicting duties, must make a decision—for example, between confidentiality and a duty to save lives. In civil law, it applies to the fulfillment of competing contractual obligations, such as a service provider with multiple creditors. It is also relevant in administrative law, for instance, with official duties of authorities when, for example, duties to provide legal protection and social duties overlap. Fundamentally, the duty conflict is recognized in all regulatory fields where, by law, several equally strong duties result in a genuine conflict of decision and it is objectively impossible to act in full compliance with duty.
What are the consequences for the person acting in case of an incorrect assessment of the duty conflict?
If a person acts on a misjudgment of the duty conflict— for instance, because they mistakenly believe duties are conflicting, even though a primary rule exists, or because they misjudge the weighing of interests—then the elimination of unlawfulness cannot occur. The consequences then depend on the respective area of law: in criminal law, punishment for a breach of duty can result; in civil law, claims for damages may arise; and in public service, disciplinary measures may be taken. There is also the risk that courts may later evaluate the balancing differently than the affected person. If the error was excusable, then—such as under § 17 StGB—only a reduction in culpability or even exemption from punishment may come into consideration. The decisive factor is whether the conflict existed objectively and the manner of action was legally reasoned.
Is a justifying duty conflict also possible with contractual duties?
Yes, a justifying duty conflict can also arise in the collision of contractual duties. This can occur, for example, if a service provider or employee is contractually obliged to deliver an indivisible performance to several clients or employers at the same time, but this is factually impossible. Here too, the law assumes the impossibility of simultaneous fulfillment of the contract and does not regard this as a culpable breach of duty. Moreover, a conflict can also exist between contractual and statutory obligations insofar as the obligated party has no possibility of fulfilling both and there is no hierarchy. In this scenario, a careful examination of the specific contractual agreements and statutory provisions is always required to avoid mistakenly assuming the existence of a conflict where none exists.
