A Study on the Rule-of-Law Definition of the Concept of Extremism: Rules and Definitions

For some time, academia and practitioners have called for China to enact specialized counter-extremism or de-radicalization legislation. “The effectiveness of law should first depend on the clarity of terminology, that is, the clarification of legal concepts.” One important concept that needs to be clarified is extremism. Although legal norms such as the Criminal Law, the Counter-Terrorism Law, and the Regulations on Religious Affairs frequently use the concept of “extremism,” none of them provide a satisfactory and clear legal definition. From the perspective of legislative history, Article 104 of the *Draft of the Counter-Terrorism Law of the People’s Republic of China* once explicitly stipulated that extremism “refers to distorting religious doctrines and propagating religious extremism, as well as other extreme thoughts, statements, and behaviors that advocate violence, harbor hatred toward society, and oppose humanity.” However, based on various considerations, the final adopted legal text did not adopt the aforementioned definition, which has made the clarification of the concept of extremism a problem. Regarding international counter-extremism cooperation, the clarification of the connotation of extremism in domestic law constitutes the foundation and prerequisite for deepening international cooperation. Although documents represented by the *Shanghai Cooperation Organization Convention on Countering Extremism* stipulate a definition of extremism, this does not restrict member states from expanding the definition based on their own national conditions. So, how should China define the concept of extremism under the rule of law?

一直以来，学界和实务界呼吁我国制定专门的反极端主义或去极端化法律，“法律的有效性首先应取决于术语的明确性，即法律概念的明确化”。其中要明确的一个重要概念是极端主义，虽然《刑法》《反恐法》《宗教事务条例》等法律规范频繁使用“极端主义”概念，但皆未给出令人满意的明晰化的法律定义。从立法史角度看，《中华人民共和国反恐怖主义法(草案)》第104条曾明文规定极端主义“是指歪曲宗教教义和宣扬宗教极端，以及其他崇尚暴力、仇视社会、反对人类等极端的思想、言论和行为”。但基于各种考虑，最终通过的法律文本并未采纳前述定义，这就导致极端主义概念的明晰化成为一个问题。就国际反极端主义合作而言，国内法对极端主义内涵的明晰化构成深化国际合作的基础和前提，虽然以《上海合作组织反极端主义公约》为代表的文件规定了极端主义的定义，但其并不限制成员国国内法基于本国实际进行的定义扩展。那么，我国应如何对极端主义概念进行法治化界定?

Currently, academic research perspectives on the concept of extremism mainly focus on comparison with the concept of terrorism, exploring its essence based on historical materialism, and determining its genus concept. These are essentially products of a single discipline such as philosophy, political science, or law, but there is very little research specifically exploring the rule-of-law definition of the concept of extremism. The rule-of-law definition of the concept of extremism involves at least disciplines such as philosophy, law, and criminology, because the nature of the concept of extremism is a concept; under the rule of law, it transforms into a legal concept; and the extension of extremism manifests as criminal phenomena. Therefore, this study adopts a comprehensive research perspective to analyze the views of domestic and foreign scholars and the legal texts of some representative countries, proposes rules that need to be followed for the rule-of-law definition of the concept of extremism, and attempts to preliminarily define the connotation of extremism, hoping to lay a foundation for China’s future formulation of specialized counter-extremism or de-radicalization laws.

目前学界研究极端主义概念的视角主要集中在与恐怖主义概念对比、基于唯物史观探究本质、属概念的确定等，基本上是哲学、政治学或法学等单一学科产物，但很少有研究专门探究极端主义概念的法治化界定问题。极端主义概念法治化界定至少涉及哲学、法学、犯罪学等学科，因为极端主义概念的性质是概念，法治化则转化为一个法律概念，极端主义的外延则表现为犯罪现象。因此，本研究采取综合研究视角对国内外学者观点和部分具有代表性国家法律文本展开分析，提出极端主义概念法治化界定需要遵守的规则，并尝试初步界定极端主义的内涵，以期能够为我国将来制定专门的反极端主义或去极端化法律奠定基础。

I. An Examination of Theoretical Views on the Concept of Extremism

一、对极端主义概念的理论观点考察

(A) The Concept of Extremism: Genus Concept and Specific Difference [1]1 This is a quotation from Chinese legal scholarship defining “indeterminate legal concepts.”

(一)极端主义概念:属概念与本质差别

The genus concept is the superordinate concept, the species concept is the subordinate concept. The genus concept is a prerequisite for accurately understanding the connotation of the species concept, and the genus concept also determines the nature of the species concept. As a subordinate concept, what is the genus concept of extremism? There are mainly five views in academia. First, the proposition-and-behavior theory. This view holds that extremism belongs to propositions and behaviors, which are expressed or manifested externally and can be perceived, but does not belong to thoughts. For example, some research holds: “‘Extremism’ generally refers to propositions and behaviors that take some extreme political view or ideology as a belief and intentionally choose extreme means, especially violent means, to express one’s views and cause political or social change.” Another view holds: “Extremism refers to propositions and behaviors such as distorting religious doctrines, using religion as a pretext or other methods to incite religious fanaticism, incite ethnic hatred and discrimination, advocate violence, and incite the commission of terrorist activities.” Second, the behavior theory. This view holds that extremism is behavior carried out under the control of some subjective consciousness or idea. For example, some research points out that extremism refers to: “Any behavior carried out by any individual or organization to achieve some goal that seriously deviates from socially recognized values and excludes any inconsistent ideas, adopting violent or other non-violent means against themselves or a third party, thereby causing serious social consequences.” “Extremism is illegal behavior based on ideas contrary to the dominant ideology of a country.” Third, the theory-or-proposition-and-behavior theory. This view is specifically divided into two types, with the common point being that both acknowledge extremism as a “theory or proposition,” and the main difference lies in whether they acknowledge the attribute of “behavior.” For example, some research holds: “Extremism should refer to any systematic theory or proposition and behavior that seriously contradicts the recognized values recognized by the vast majority of a country’s citizens or the international community.” Others believe that extremism refers to “theories or propositions that use extreme means to achieve certain goals.” Fourth, the ideology-and-belief theory. This view places extremism in the field of philosophy or psychology, regarding extremism as a collection of ideas or a personality tendency. For example, some scholars believe that extremism is essentially an ideological ideology, or a belief that the success and continuation of an ingroup requires taking hostile actions against outgroups. Fifth, the blank-leaving theory. This view places extremism under the sociological perspective, describing the connotation of extremism without clearly defining its genus concept. For example, some scholars point out: “‘Extremism’ refers to adopting extremely biased attitudes and methods towards a specific target group to satisfy certain social, political, ethnic, or religious demands, even imposing threats or harm on them.” “Extremism refers to a general deviation in behavior or attitude patterns that commonly exist in a specific social context.”

属概念是上位概念，种概念是下位概念，属概念是准确理解种概念内涵的前提条件，属概念也决定了种概念的性质。极端主义作为下位概念，那么，其属概念是什么?学界主要存在五种观点。一是主张和行为说。此种观点认为，极端主义属于主张和行为，是表现或表达于外且可被感知的，但不属于思想。例如有研究认为:“‘极端主义’一般是指以某种极端的政治观点或意识形态作为信仰，有意选择以极端的手段特别是暴力手段来表达其观点、引起政治或社会变革的主张和行为。”还有观点认为:“极端主义是指以歪曲宗教教义、假借宗教名义或以其他方法煽动宗教狂热、煽动民族仇恨、歧视、鼓吹暴力、煽动实施恐怖活动等的主张和行为。”二是行为说。此种观点认为，极端主义是在某种主观意识或理念支配下实施的行为。例如有研究指出，极端主义是指:“任何个人或组织为实现其某种严重脱离于社会公认的价值观，并排斥与之不一致的任何理念，而针对自身或第三者采取暴力或其他非暴力的手段，从而造成严重社会后果的行为。”“极端主义是建立在与一国占统治地位的意识形态相违背的思想之上的违法行为。”三是理论或主张、行为说。此种观点具体分为两类，共同点均承认极端主义是“理论或主张”，主要区别在于是否承认“行为”属性。例如有研究认为:“极端主义应当是指任何与一国绝大多数公民或国际社会所认可的公认价值观严重相违背的系统理论或主张及行为。”也有人认为，极端主义是指“采用极端手段达到某些目的的理论或者主张。”四是意识形态和信念说。此种观点把极端主义置于哲学或心理学领域，把极端主义视为一种观念集合或个性倾向。例如有学者认为，极端主义本质上是观念性意识形态,或者是内群体的成功与延续需要通过对外群体采取敌对行动来实现的信念。五是留白说。此观点把极端主义置于社会学视域下，对极端主义内涵进行描述，并未明确界定其属概念，例如有学者指出:“‘极端主义’是指为满足某种社会、政治、民族或宗教诉求而采取极度偏激的态度和方式对待某一特定目标群体，甚至对其施加威胁或伤害。”“极端主义是指特定社会背景下普遍存在的一般行为或态度模式的偏差。”

The definiendum is the concept being defined. The genus concept is its superordinate concept. The essential difference between the definiendum and other species concepts under the same genus is called the specific difference. To accurately understand the concept of extremism, it is also necessary to reasonably determine the specific difference as a prerequisite; otherwise, it is difficult to clarify its boundary with similar concepts. The aforementioned academic views mainly include four categories. First, the single-element theory. This view holds that the essential difference between extremism and other species concepts under the same genus lies only in the ideological foundation, the content of which is contrary to a country’s ideology or socially recognized values. Second, the two-element theory of goal-or-purpose plus means. This view emphasizes that “goal or purpose” and “means” are the essential differences between extremism and other species concepts. “Means” are diverse, hostile, extreme, etc., and the content of “goal or purpose” is fanatical, violent, discriminatory, hateful, etc. Third, the three-element theory. This view adds either “ideological foundation” or “object of behavior” as one of the specific differences on the basis of “purpose” and “means.” The first scenario emphasizes that the ideological foundation must be a certain belief, with extreme political views or ideology as its content, the means must be expressed as extreme means such as violence, and the purpose is to propagate one’s views or cause political or social change. The second scenario emphasizes that the purpose is to realize social, political, ethnic, or religious demands, the means are extremely biased, and the object of behavior is a specific target group. Fourth, the four-element theory of subject plus purpose plus means plus consequence. The subject can be any individual or organization, the purpose is to seriously violate socially recognized values and is exclusive, the means can be violent or non-violent, and the consequence has serious social harmfulness.

被定义项即被定义的概念，属概念作为其上位概念，被定义项与其他所属的种概念之本质差别，称为种差。欲准确理解极端主义概念，亦须以合理确定种差为前提条件，否则难以厘清其与相近概念之边界。前述学界观点主要包括四类。一是单一要素说，此观点认为，极端主义与其他同属种概念之本质差别仅在于思想基础，其内容是与一国意识形态或社会公认价值观相违背的。二是目标或目的+手段的两要素说，此种观点强调“目标或目的”与“手段”是极端主义与其他种概念的本质区别，“手段”具有多样性、敌对性、极端性等，“目标或目的”内容具有狂热性、暴力性、歧视性、仇恨性等。三是三要素说，此种观点是在“目的”和“手段”的基础上，增加“思想基础”或“行为对象”之一作为种差，第一种情形强调思想基础必须是某种信仰，且以极端的政治观点或意识形态为内容，手段必须表现为暴力等极端手段，目的是宣扬其观点或引起政治或社会变革;第二种情形强调目的是实现社会、政治、民族或宗教诉求，手段具有极度偏激性，行为对象是某一特定目标群体。四是主体+目的+手段+后果的四要素说，主体可以是任何个人或组织，目的是严重违背社会公认价值观且具有排斥性，手段可以暴力或非暴力，后果具有严重的社会危害性。

(B) The Concept of Extremism: Consensus and Divergence

(二)极端主义概念:共识与分歧

Regarding the superordinate concept, i.e., the genus concept, of extremism, there is considerable disagreement within academia, making it difficult to reach a consensus. The divergence is specifically manifested in two aspects: first, whether the nature of extremism is singular or composite—for example, whether extremism is an act, a belief, or an ideology; or a proposition and an act; or a theory, a proposition, and an act. Second, whether extremism is a purely or impurely subjective or objective thing—for example, views that extremism is a belief or a theory all hold that extremism is subjective; views that extremism is an act hold that extremism is objective. What is the cause of the aforementioned divergence? The singular genus concept views mainly include the act theory, the ideology theory, and the belief theory; the composite genus concept views mainly include the proposition and act theory, the theory, proposition and act theory, and the theory and proposition theory. Moreover, these different genus concepts also differ in their understanding of the subjectivity and objectivity of extremism. From the perspective of value judgment, the singular genus concept views also differ in the ordering or emphasis of different values. The act theory holds that extremism belongs to objectified acts, not to subjective thoughts or concepts, and opposes bringing the cultural-spiritual sphere of people into the legal regulation of anti-extremism or de-radicalization, emphasizing the protection of people's cultural-spiritual freedom. The ideology theory and the belief theory hold that extremism belongs to concepts, bringing the cultural-spiritual sphere of people into legal regulation, emphasizing the protection of the national or social public interests infringed upon by extremism. As for the composite genus concept views, a proposition refers to the opinions and views held about things; opinions and views are products of subjective thinking. A theory refers to a systematic rational understanding; understanding is a thinking activity. The three views under the composite genus concept all emphasize the protection of national or social public interests, while weakening the protection of people's cultural-spiritual freedom to varying degrees. Therefore, overall, the cause of the divergence is primarily the different ordering of values between people's cultural-spiritual freedom and national or social public interests.

关于极端主义的上位概念即属概念，学界分歧较大，很难达成共识，分歧具体表现为两方面:一是极端主义的性质是单一的还是复合的，例如极端主义是行为、信念或意识形态，还是主张和行为，抑或理论、主张和行为。二是极端主义是纯正的抑或非纯正的主观或客观事物，例如极端主义是信念或理论等观点，均认为极端主义具有主观性;极端主义是行为等观点，则认为极端主义是客观的。前述分歧产生的原因是什么?单一属概念观点主要包括行为说、意识形态说、信念说，复合属概念观点主要包括主张和行为说、理论、主张和行为说、理论和主张说。而且前述不同属概念对极端主义主客观性的理解也不同。从价值判断视角，单一属概念观点对不同价值的排序或侧重也不同，行为说认为，极端主义属于客观化的行为，而不属于主观思想或观念，反对把人的文化－精神领域纳入反极端主义或去极端化法律调整，侧重于对人的文化－精神自由之保护。意识形态说和信念说则认为，极端主义属于观念，把人的文化－精神领域纳入法律调整，侧重对极端主义侵害的国家或社会公共利益之保护。就复合属概念观点而言，主张是指对事物持有的见解和看法，见解和看法则是主观思维的产物。理论是指系统的理性认识，认识则是一种思维活动。复合属概念下三种观点均侧重对国家或社会公共利益之保护，而不同程度上弱化了对人的文化－精神自由之保护。因此，整体上说分歧产生之原因主要是对人的文化－精神自由与国家或社会公共利益之价值排序的不同。

So, can the genus concept of extremism be two or more at the same time? According to the rules of concept definition, the genus concept must be a concept one level higher than the definiendum. Therefore, the composite views are suspected of not conforming to the rules of definition. It is difficult for extremism within the same domain of discourse to simultaneously have two or more superordinate concepts one level higher than itself. The aforementioned composite views may not have accurately clarified the boundary or relationship between the two genus concepts, for example, act and proposition, theory or proposition, act. Conversely, adopting a singular genus concept view conforms to the rules of concept definition, such as the act theory, the ideology theory, and the belief theory. The practice of not defining the genus concept of extremism does not conform to the rules of definition. These views all seek the superordinate concept of extremism from different disciplinary perspectives, but it is still necessary to demonstrate the rationality of the superordinate concept of extremism being an act or ideology, etc., and which discipline's genus concept is more reasonable to adopt. Is extremism a purely or impurely subjective or objective thing? Only from the division of genus concepts, there are three types: first, purely subjective things, such as the belief theory and the ideology theory; second, purely objective things, such as the act theory; third, impurely subjective or objective things, such as the act and theory theory. If extremism is merely regarded as a purely subjective or purely objective thing, it does not conform to reality, because the subjective and objective are unified. For example, a theory is subjective in form, but its content is a reflection of the objective world; the external manifestation of an act is objective, but it is implemented under the control of subjective consciousness and is the objectification of subjective consciousness. However, this is different from the aforementioned third type, which defines extremism as an impurely subjective or objective thing from the perspective of genus concept, but rather an analysis derived from the perspective of the structural levels or elements of things.

那么，极端主义的属概念可否同时为两个及两个以上?依据概念定义规则，属概念必须是比被定义项大一级的概念，因此，复合型观点就存在不符合定义规则的嫌疑，同一论域下的极端主义很难同时存在两个及以上比其大一级的上位概念，前述复合型观点可能是并未准确厘清两个属概念之间的边界或关系，例如行为和主张、理论或主张、行为。相反，采取单一属概念的观点则是符合概念定义规则的，例如行为说、意识形态说、信念说，未界定极端主义属概念的做法不符合定义规则。这些观点均是从不同学科视角寻找极端主义上位概念，但是依然需要论证极端主义的上位概念是行为或意识形态等的合理性，以及采纳哪一学科的属概念更为合理。极端主义是纯正还是非纯正主观或客观事物?仅从属概念划分，共存在三种类型:一是纯正主观事物，例如信念说、意识形态说;二是纯正客观事物，例如行为说;三是非纯正的主观或客观事物，例如行为和理论说。如果仅把极端主义视为纯正的主观或客观事物是不符合实际的，因为主客观是相统一的，例如理论形式上是主观的，但其内容是对客观世界的反映，行为的外在表现是客观的，可其是在主观意识支配下实施的，是主观意识的客观化。但这不同于前述第三类型从属概念上把极端主义界定为非纯正主观或客观事物，而是从事物结构层次或要素视角分析得出的。

Regarding the essential difference between extremism and other concepts under the same genus, various views basically hold that it is "purpose and means." The divergence among various views is mainly manifested in two aspects. First, whether purpose and means are the essential characteristics of extremism, and whether elements such as subject, consequence, and object of the act are necessary. This issue needs to be premised on determining the genus concept of extremism, because only by comparing concepts under the same genus can the essential characteristics of extremism be truly found. Second, the purpose and means of extremism can be clarified from the two perspectives of content and characteristics, but each view differs slightly, which will affect the extension scope of extremism. For example, the aforementioned views differ on whether the content of purpose only refers to political or social demands or changes, and whether the characteristics of means, in addition to being extreme or radical, should also include things like hostility. What can be determined at present is that the content of the purpose of extremism must directly involve public interests or matters and be unjust; means can include violence and non-violence; a typical external manifestation is the use of unnecessary violence or disproportionate violence to pursue an unjust cause. The cause of the divergence in the aforementioned two aspects is mainly the different understanding of the degree or scope of intervention in people's cultural-spiritual freedom and the degree of protection of national or social public interests, because the number of essential characteristics or the criteria for identification will affect the extension scope of extremism. The divergence regarding purpose and means can be resolved according to the rules of definition, i.e., the extension of the definiendum must equal the extension of the definiens. The content or characteristics of purpose and means can be reasonably selected by comparing the extension scope of the definiens and the definiendum. The different understandings of purpose and means in the aforementioned various views also indicate that some views may not have strictly followed the rules of definition.

关于极端主义与其他同属种概念的本质差别，各种观点基本上均认为是“目的和手段”。各种观点分歧主要表现在两方面。一是目的和手段为极端主义的本质特征，主体、后果、行为对象等要素是否必要。这个问题需要以确定极端主义属概念为前提，因为只有比较同属种概念才能真正找到极端主义的本质特征。二是极端主义的目的和手段可从内容和特征两个角度进行明确，但是每种观点略有差异，会影响极端主义的外延范围。例如前述观点在目的内容是否仅指政治、社会诉求或变革上存在不同，手段特征除具有极端或偏激性外，是否还应包括像敌对性等均存在差异。目前可以确定的是极端主义目的内容必须直接涉及公共利益或事项，而且具有非公正性，手段可以包括暴力和非暴力，典型外在表现形式是使用不必要的暴力或不成比例的暴力来追求不公正的事业。前述两方面分歧产生之原因主要是对人的文化－精神自由干预之程度或范围，以及对国家或社会公共利益保护之程度理解不同，因为本质特征的数量或认定标准会影响极端主义的外延范围。对于目的和手段的分歧，可以根据定义规则解决，即被定义项外延必须等于定义项外延，可以通过比较定义项与被定义项外延范围的方法来对目的和手段内容或特征做出合理选择，前述各种观点对目的和手段的不同理解，也说明了部分观点可能未严格遵循定义规则。

II. Examination of Practical Views on the Concept of Extremism

二、对极端主义概念的实务观点考察

The examination of practical views on the concept of extremism is mainly conducted from the perspectives of legislation, judiciary, and law enforcement. However, since judiciary and law enforcement are activities carried out according to law, the following analysis primarily uses the concept of extremism in legal texts as a sample. Currently, some countries or regions where counter-extremism or counter-terrorism is more urgent have already formulated specialized counter-extremism laws or de-radicalization laws, such as the Kyrgyz Republic's 2023 "Law on Countering Extremist Activities," Tajikistan's 2020 "Law on Countering Extremism," Uzbekistan's 2018 "Law on Countering Extremism," and Kazakhstan's 2020 "Law on Countering Extremism." How these legal texts define the concept of extremism mainly presents five situations: the avoidance type, the blank-leaving type, the transfer type, the clear differentia type, and the fully determined type.

对极端主义概念的实务观点考察，主要是从立法、司法、执法角度进行，但司法和执法均是依法进行的活动，因此，以下主要以法律文本中的极端主义概念为样本进行分析。目前反极端主义或反恐较为急迫的部分国家或地区，业已制定专门的反极端主义法或去极端化法，例如吉尔吉斯共和国2023年的《反极端主义活动法》、2020年塔吉克斯坦的《反极端主义法》、2018年乌兹别克斯坦的《反极端主义法》、2020年哈萨克斯坦的《反极端主义法》。这些法律文本如何界定极端主义概念，主要存在五种情形:回避型、留白型、转移型、种差明确型、完全确定型。

(I) Avoidance Type

(一)回避型

The avoidance type refers to neither explicitly defining the concept of extremism nor stipulating the genus concept and differentia of extremism. For example, Article 4 of the Kyrgyz Republic's 2023 "Law on Countering Extremist Activities," concerning the definition of basic concepts used in this Law, only contains seven concepts: extremist activities, extremist organization, extremist materials, utensils and symbols of an extremist organization, prevention of extremist activities, combating extremist activities, and warning. This method essentially avoids the controversy over the concept of extremism and does not solve the problem. As extremism is the core legal concept of de-radicalization laws or counter-extremism laws, the avoidance practice not only affects the definition or understanding of related concepts such as extremist activities and extremist materials but also leads to vague legislative purposes and inconsistent standards of legal application, which is not conducive to the protection of human rights.

回避型，即未明确规定极端主义概念，亦未规定极端主义属概念和种差。例如吉尔吉斯共和国2023年的《反极端主义活动法》第4条关于本法所用基本概念之规定，仅有7个概念:极端主义活动、极端组织、极端主义材料、极端主义组织的用具和标志、预防极端主义活动、打击极端主义活动、警告。此种方式本质上是回避了极端主义概念之争议，并未解决问题，极端主义作为去极端化法或反极端主义法的核心法律概念，回避的做法不仅会影响极端主义活动、极端主义材料等相近概念的界定或理解，而且也会导致立法目的模糊和法律适用标准不统一，不利于保障人权。

(II) Blank-Leaving Type

(二)留白型

The blank-leaving type, that is, it does not explicitly stipulate the genus concept of extremism, and at the same time uses the word “etc.” to make a limited stipulation on the constituent elements of the essential characteristics of extremism, in order to deal with many differences and leave them for subsequent discussion or interpretation. For example, Article 4, Paragraph 2 of China’s Counter-Terrorism Law stipulates: “The State opposes all forms of extremism that distort religious teachings or use other methods to incite hatred, incite discrimination, advocate violence, etc., and eliminates the ideological foundation of terrorism.” It only uses two elements, means and purpose, to define extremism, and ends with the word “etc.” This method is a significant improvement over the avoidance type, but because the genus concept of extremism is not explicitly stipulated, it is difficult to effectively clarify the essential differences from other concepts of the same genus and species, as a suitable object for comparison cannot be effectively selected. Furthermore, using the word “etc.” to leave a blank essentially indicates that it only explicitly stipulates a certain type of extremism. For “other methods” and “etc.,” legal interpretation methods must be used for clarification. This essentially pushes the problem onto the practical departments, and whether legal interpretation methods can effectively resolve the aforementioned differences is also a question. In short, some core connotations of this type of concept are relatively certain, but the ambiguity of the marginal areas is high, which can easily lead to situations where human rights are violated due to improper application of legal interpretation methods.

留白型，即未明确规定极端主义概念的属概念，同时使用“等”字对极端主义本质特征之构成要素作有限性规定，以此来应对诸多分歧，留待后续讨论或解释。例如我国《反恐法》第4条第2款规定:“国家反对一切形式的以歪曲宗教教义或者其他方法煽动仇恨、煽动歧视、鼓吹暴力等极端主义，消除恐怖主义的思想基础。”其仅使用手段和目的两个要素来界定极端主义，后面又使用“等”字结尾。此种方式相较回避型有较大进步，但因未明文规定极端主义属概念，会导致难以有效厘清与其他同属种概念的本质差别，因为不能有效选择比较对象。另外，使用“等”字留白，在本质上说明其仅仅明确规定了某类极端主义，对于“其他方法”和“等”均需利用法律解释方法进行明确，这在本质上把难题推给了实务部门，而且法律解释方法到底能否有效解决前述分歧亦是问题。总之，此类概念的部分核心内涵相对确定，但是边缘地带模糊性较高，极易导致因法律解释方法运用不当而侵犯人权情形的发生。

(3) The Transfer Type

(三)转移型

The transfer type, that is, it takes “extremist activities” as a component of the connotation of extremism, and positions extremism as the expression of extremist activities, no longer explicitly stipulating the genus concept of extremism, while only using “purpose” as the essential difference between extremism and other concepts. For example, Tajikistan’s 2020 Law on Combating Extremism stipulates: Extremism is the expression of extremist activities, the purpose of which is to use violence or other illegal means to solve political, ethnic, or religious problems. Thus, by merely defining the connotation of extremist activities, the concept of extremism can be clarified. Compared to the differences existing over the concept of extremism, there are fewer disputes over the concept of extremist activities; its genus concept is “behavior,” and its specific difference is mainly composed of “subject” or “purpose,” and the purpose of extremism is consistent with the purpose of extremist activities. For example, Uzbekistan’s 2018 Law on Combating Extremism stipulates: Extremist activities are aimed at establishing or participating in illegal armed formations, producing, storing, disseminating, displaying the characteristics, symbols, etc., of extremist organizations. Compared to the previous two types, although this method superficially reduces the difficulty of defining extremism, the view that “extremism is the expression of extremist activities” is actually debatable. The premise of this view is to regard extremism as a kind of thought or theory; if it is regarded as a kind of behavior, then there is a logical problem. Furthermore, defining the concept of extremist activities still requires defining the concept of extremism as a prerequisite, because the essential core of extremist activities is extremism. Therefore, there is a suspicion of circular definition.

转移型，即把“极端主义活动”作为极端主义内涵的组成部分，并把极端主义定位为极端主义活动的表达，不再明确规定极端主义的属概念，同时仅把“目的”作为极端主义与其他概念的本质差别。例如2020年塔吉克斯坦《反极端主义法》规定:极端主义是极端主义活动的表达，其目的是利用暴力或其他违法行为解决政治、民族或宗教等问题。由此只需界定极端主义活动内涵，即可明确极端主义概念，相较极端主义概念存在的分歧，极端主义活动概念争议较少，其属概念是“行为”，其种差主要由“主体”或“目的”构成，而且极端主义目的与极端主义活动目的具有一致性。例如2018年乌兹别克斯坦《反极端主义法》规定:极端主义活动是旨在建立或参与非法武装组织，制作、储存、传播、展示极端组织的特征、标志等。此种方式相较于前两者，虽然表面上降低了界定极端主义的难度，但认为“极端主义是极端主义活动的表达”之观点其实值得商榷，此观点前提假设是把极端主义视为一种思想或理论，如果把其视为一种行为，则存在逻辑问题。另外界定极端主义活动概念依然需要以界定极端主义概念为前提，因为极端主义活动的本质内核是极端主义，因此，存在循环定义之嫌。

(4) The Specific-Difference-Definite Type

(四)种差明确型

The specific-difference-definite type, that is, it explicitly stipulates the essential differences between extremism and other species concepts, but does not stipulate the genus concept of extremism. For example, Kazakhstan’s 2020 Law on Combating Extremism stipulates the connotation of extremism. Its specific differences include subject and purpose. The subject is manifested as natural persons and/or legal persons, joint action entities of natural persons and/or legal persons, combinations of entities and/or action entities, etc. The purpose is mainly manifested as inciting religious hatred or division, inciting racial or ethnic strife, violently changing the constitutional system, infringing upon the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic of Kazakhstan, etc. Compared to the blank-leaving type, this method is more definite in terms of specific differences and does not use the word “etc.” to leave a blank. However, without clarifying the genus concept of extremism, whether stipulating the specific differences of extremism can accurately or reasonably explain the essential differences from other concepts of the same genus and species is debatable.

种差明确型，即明确规定极端主义与其他种概念的本质差别，但是并不规定极端主义的属概念，例如2020年哈萨克斯坦《反极端主义法》对极端主义内涵的规定，其种差包括主体与目的，主体表现为，自然人和(或)法人，自然人和(或)法人的联合行动实体，实体和(或)行动实体的结合等，目的主要表现为煽动宗教仇恨或分裂、煽动种族、民族纠纷，暴力改变宪法制度，侵犯哈萨克斯坦共和国主权、完整性等。此种方式相较留白型，在种差上更为明确，并未使用“等”字留白，但是其在未明确极端主义属概念的情况下，规定极端主义种差，能否准确或合理地说明与其他同属种概念之本质差别，值得商榷。

(5) The Completely Definite Type

(五)完全确定型

The completely definite type, that is, it explicitly stipulates the genus concept and specific differences of extremism. For example, the “Draft Amendments to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on Countering Extremist Activities—CDL(2012)” defines “extremism” as “actions aimed at seizing or retaining power through the use of violence or violently changing the state constitutional system, as well as violent encroachments on public safety.” Compared to the aforementioned four types, the connotation of extremism in this method is clearer. It defines the genus concept of extremism as “behavior” and uses “purpose” as the specific difference. However, it still does not explain why it is not “proposition,” “theory,” or “belief,” etc., and its reasonableness remains questionable.

完全确定型，即明确规定极端主义的属概念与种差，例如《关于俄罗斯联邦反极端主义活动联邦法的修订意见草案—CDL(2012)》把“极端主义”规定为“旨在通过使用暴力夺取或保持权力或暴力改变国家宪法制度的行为，以及暴力侵犯公共安全的行为”。此种方式相较前述四者，极端主义的内涵更为明确，其把极端主义属概念界定为“行为”，把“目的”作为种差，但是依然未说明为何不是“主张”“理论”或“信念”等，其合理性依然留有存疑之处。

Regarding the aforementioned five situations, there are fewer differences and higher consensus on the genus concept and essential characteristics of extremism. As for the genus concept, basically all believe that the law should try not to explicitly stipulate the genus concept of extremism. Among them, only the “completely definite type” explicitly stipulates the genus concept of extremism as “behavior,” while the other four situations do not explicitly stipulate it. As for the essential characteristics, basically all take “purpose” as the essential characteristic of extremism, except for the “avoidance type,” the other four situations are all like this. However, from the perspective of value judgment, not explicitly stipulating the genus concept of extremism in law or only taking “purpose” as the essential characteristic indicates that it focuses on protecting national or social public interests. This may lead to situations where people’s cultural-spiritual freedom and other rights are violated.

前述五种情形对极端主义属概念和本质特征存在的分歧较少而共识较高，就属概念而言，基本上均认为法律应尽量不明文规定极端主义属概念，其中只有“完全确定型”明确规定极端主义属概念为“行为”，其余四种情形均未明文规定。就本质特征而言，基本上均把“目的”作为极端主义本质特征，其中除“回避型”之外的四种情形均是如此。但从价值判断角度上看，法律上不明文规定极端主义属概念或者仅把“目的”作为本质特征，说明其侧重于保护国家或社会公共利益，这将可能发生侵犯人的文化－精神自由以及其他权利之情况。

III. Rules for the Legal Definition of the Concept of Extremism

三、极端主义概念法治化界定之规则

Theory and practice mainly exhibit five characteristics in defining the concept of extremism. First, practice places more emphasis on defining the essential characteristics of extremism rather than the genus concept, while theory emphasizes both equally. Second, both violate the rules of concept definition. Third, a large number of evaluative or vague concepts are used to define the concept of extremism. Fourth, there is a low degree of consistency between theory and practice in understanding the concept of extremism. Fifth, the measurement revolves around people’s cultural-spiritual freedom and national or social public interests. Facing the many problems in defining the concept of extremism, if it is to be treated as a legal concept in legal texts, considerations must be given to general definition rules, legal concept theory, interest measurement, and the characteristics of criminal phenomena within the extension of extremism. Generally speaking, the legal definition of the concept of extremism must at least comply with the following rules.

理论和实务对极端主义概念的界定主要存在五个特点。一是实务上更重视对极端主义本质特征而非属概念的界定，理论上则两者并重。二是都存在违反概念定义规则的现象。三是使用大量评价性或模糊性概念来界定极端主义概念。四是理论与实务对极端主义概念的理解存在较低限度的一致性。五是围绕人之文化－精神自由与国家或社会公共利益进行衡量。面对极端主义概念界定存在的诸多问题，如果把其作为法律文本中的一个法律概念，则要考虑一般定义规则、法律概念理论、利益衡量以及极端主义外延的犯罪现象特性等方面，总体而言，极端主义概念的法治化界定至少要遵守以下规则。

(1) The Genus Concept of Extremism Must Be a Concept One Level Higher Than Itself

(一)极端主义属概念必须是比其大一级的概念

Regarding the controversy over the genus concept of extremism, according to the definition rule that the genus concept of the definiendum must be a concept one level higher than it, various viewpoints can be discussed. Before discussion, the literal meaning of the term "extremism" must first be analyzed, so that it becomes easier to determine the concept one level higher than it. The basic meaning of "extreme" refers to the apex reached in the development of things; it essentially violates the thought of the "Doctrine of the Mean" in traditional Chinese culture. The basic meaning of the "Doctrine of the Mean" is neither excess nor deficiency, or being moderate and balanced, encompassing the two perspectives of "excess" and "deficiency." Specifically, it requires neither excess nor deficiency in relation to "coexistence," that is, "it manifests the cosmic ideal of all things nurturing together, indicating the unobstructed path of parallel and non-conflicting development." [1]1 This is a quotation from Chinese legal scholarship defining “indeterminate legal concepts.” Therefore, in the context of anti-extremism or de-extremification, "extreme" actually violates the thought of "coexistence" and is essentially a form of "exclusion" or "exclusive existence." The term "ism" has multiple layers of meaning, mainly including specific thoughts, theoretical or doctrinal systems, specific social systems, specific modes of behavior or conduct, and propositions regarding matters. There is an extended relationship among these; for example, usually there is first a thought, theory, or doctrinal system, whose content takes the meaning of "extreme," and then based on it, social systems, modes of behavior or conduct, and propositions arise. The latter expresses the former, and the former serves as the ideological foundation or content of the latter. Therefore, merely identifying behavior, propositions, or theory as the genus concept of extremism would risk one-sided omission. Social systems belong to the category of ideology, but the concept of ideology itself has problems such as considerable ambiguity, exclusivity, and a broad extension, making it unsuitable as the genus concept of extremism. Belief is an individual's conviction or personality disposition; it is a different concept from extremism and can hardly become its genus concept. To understand extremism objectively and comprehensively, it is more appropriate to determine its genus concept as a "complex," which is a complex whole composed of different or multiple elements or parts. Therefore, extremism can be described as a complex with "exclusion" or "exclusive existence" as its content, having different forms of expression or manifestation.

针对极端主义属概念争议，依据被定义项属概念必须是比其大一级之概念的定义规则，可对诸多观点进行讨论。讨论之前必须先对“极端主义”一词字面含义进行分析，然后才能更容易确定比其大一级的概念。“极端”的基本含义是指事物发展所达顶点，其本质上违背我国传统文化中“中庸”思想，“中庸”的基本含义是无过无不及或中正平和，包括“过”与“不及”两个视角，具体则要求无过无不及于“共生”，即“昭示着万物并育的宇宙理想，指示着并行不悖的通达之道”。因此，在反极端主义或去极端化语境中，“极端”实际上是违背“共生”思想，本质上是一种“排斥”或“独生”。“主义”一词具有多层含义，主要包括特定思想、理论或学说体系、特定社会制度、特有行为方式或作风、对事情的主张。其间存在一种延伸关系，比如通常是先有思想、理论或学说体系，且其以“极端”的含义为内容，然后基于其产生社会制度、行为方式或作风以及主张，后者表达前者，前者作为后者的思想基础或内容，因此，仅把行为、主张、理论确定为极端主义属概念将存在片面遗漏之嫌，社会制度属于意识形态范畴，但意识形态概念本身存在较大模糊性、排斥性以及外延较宽等问题，不适合作为极端主义的属概念，信念是个体的坚信或个性倾向，其与极端主义是两个不同的概念，难以成为极端主义属概念。为了客观全面地理解极端主义，把其属概念确定为“复合体”较为合适，其是由不同或多个要素或部分构成的复杂整体。因此，可把极端主义表述为以“排斥”或“独生”为内容具有不同表达或表现形态的复合体。

(2) The extension of the definiens must be equal to the extension of extremism

(二)定义项外延与极端主义外延必须相等

If certain things fall within the genus concept of extremism and conform to its essential characteristics, they belong to extremism. According to the definition rule, with extremism as the definiendum and its connotation as the definiens, a reasonable definition of extremism requires that the extensions of the two be equal; the extension of the connotation must not be smaller or larger than the extension of the definiendum. The genus concept of extremism is a "complex," including theories, thoughts and doctrinal systems, behaviors or conduct, social systems, and propositions. These are also the external manifestations or forms of expression of extremism, observable or perceptible by people. However, not all theories, behaviors, or propositions, etc., belong to extremism; this depends on the essential differences between concepts of the same genus and different species. But since the genus concept of extremism is a complex containing multiple elements, it is difficult to directly compare concepts of the same genus and different species. Therefore, according to the forms of expression or manifestation of extremism, it can first be divided into several types: theories, thoughts, doctrinal systems; behaviors or conduct; social systems; propositions. Then, by finding the commonality of each type, the essential characteristics of extremism can be abstracted. In fact, this is the content or meaning behind the form, that is, "exclusion" or "exclusive existence." However, it is still necessary to limit the essential characteristics to prevent generalization. Specific exemption circumstances at least include: first, self-protection based on legitimate, reasonable, and legal purposes; second, including phenomena naturally formed in the normal development of society; third, exclusion must be unavoidable; fourth, exclusion must not exceed a certain limit; fifth, situations where the other party has consented under the premise of not violating moral ethics and the rule of law. Theoretical and practical viewpoints only refer to one or several forms of extremism. For example, the "theory, proposition, and behavior theory," which covers more forms, also has omissions. Under the limitation of the genus concept, the greater the number of essential characteristics, the smaller the extension, and conversely, the broader it is. Therefore, the extensions of the aforementioned theoretical and practical viewpoints are not equal to the extension of extremism; they basically only include part of the extension of extremism.

如果某些事物落在极端主义属概念之内，且符合极端主义本质特征则其属于极端主义。依据定义规则，极端主义作为被定义项，内涵作为定义项，一个合理的极端主义定义，要求两者外延相等，内涵之外延不能小于或大于被定义项外延。极端主义属概念是“复合体”，包括理论、思想及学说体系、行为或作风、社会制度、主张，实际上这些也是极端主义的外在表现或表达形态，是人们可观察或感知的，但是并非所有的理论、行为或主张等都属于极端主义，这取决于同属种概念间的本质区别，但极端主义属概念是一个包含多种要素的复合体，难以直接开展同属种概念间的比较。因此，依据极端主义的表达或表现形态，可先把其划分为若干类型:理论、思想、学说体系类、行为或作风类、社会制度类、主张类，然后寻找每类共同点，这样就可以抽象出极端主义本质特征，实际上就是形式背后的内容或意涵，也即“排斥”或“独生”。但依然需要限定本质特征以防止泛化，具体豁免情形至少包括:一是基于正当合理合法目的之自我保护;二是包括社会正常发展自然形成之现象;三是排斥必须是迫不得已的;四是排斥必须不能超过一定限度;五是不违反道德伦理和法治的前提下对方承诺同意的情形。理论和实务观点仅指极端主义某个或几个形态，例如涵盖形态较多的“理论、主张和行为说”也存在遗漏，在属概念限定下，本质特征数量越多，其外延越小，相反则越宽，因此，前述理论和实务观点之外延与极端主义的外延不相等，基本上均是仅包含极端主义的部分外延。

(3) Coordination of the characteristics, purpose, and naming of legal norms

(三)法律规范特性、目的和命名的协调性

"The legislative purpose clause is the statutory legislative purpose, used to express the spirit and goals of the legislator in formulating the entire law." The goals of anti-extremism legislation mainly include three types: first, preventing or eliminating extremist activities and their causes and conditions. For example, Article 2 of the 2023 Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Countering Extremist Activities stipulates: preventing, detecting, and suppressing extremist activities and eliminating the causes and conditions conducive to the commission of these acts. Second, regulating legal relations in countering extremism. For example, Article 1 of the 2018 Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Countering Extremism stipulates: the purpose of this law is to regulate relations in the field of countering extremism. Third, de-extremification. For example, Article 1 of the Regulations of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region on De-extremification stipulates: to curb and eliminate extremification, prevent harm from extremification, and achieve social stability and lasting peace. [2]2 This is a quotation from Chinese legal scholarship on the methodology of interest balancing. The constituent elements of the name of a normative legal document include the matter, content, or subject of the law. The legislative purpose and the constituent elements of the legal name should correspond to each other, respectively being "countering extremist activities," "countering extremism," and "de-extremification." The aforementioned legal purposes or subjects vary; which one is more reasonable? It is more reasonable to take countering extremism as the purpose and define extremism as a complex. There are three reasons. First, it is more conducive to promoting the source governance of extremism. The connotation and extension of extremism are greater than those of extremist activities and extremification. Extremist activities emphasize behavioral attributes, while extremification emphasizes the process and state of being "contaminated" by extremist ideology. Countering extremism cannot simply be equated with countering extremist activities and de-extremification. Extremist ideology itself is a more essential or fundamental issue. Extremism as a complex precisely highlights the "ideological" element. Second, it saves legislative costs. If countering extremist activities and de-extremification are taken as legislative purposes, then in addition to defining the connotations of extremist activities and extremification, it is also necessary to specifically define the basic concept of extremism and clarify the boundaries between the three. It is better to directly take extremism as the core concept. Extremism as a complex essentially already contains the implications of extremist activities and extremification, and their essence has been pointed out. If concretization is needed, it can also be achieved through the less difficult method of enumeration. Third, it is more consistent with the characteristics of a "crime governance law." Specialized anti-extremism legislation takes the phenomenon of extremist crime as its governance object and is a typical "crime governance law." It differs from the traditional model of crime governance monopolized by the government, requiring substantive participation of society or the market in crime governance. The crime phenomenon is a complex system, with constituent elements including people, psychology, behavior, objects, time, and space. If the concept of extremism (complex) is taken as the content of the legislative purpose and legal name, this is more consistent with the systemic nature of the crime phenomenon.

“立法目的条款是法定的立法目的，用来表明立法者制定整部法律的精神与目标。”反极端主义立法之目标主要包括三种:一是防止或消除极端主义活动及其原因和条件，例如2023年吉尔吉斯共和国《反极端主义活动法》第2条规定:预防、发现、制止极端主义活动并消除有利于实施这些行为的原因和条件。二是规范反极端主义法律关系，例如2018年乌兹别克斯坦《反极端主义法》第1条规定:该法的目的是规范反极端主义领域的关系。三是去极端化，例如《新疆维吾尔自治区去极端化条例》第1条规定:为了遏制和消除极端化，防范极端化侵害，实现社会稳定和长治久安。规范性法律文件名称构成要素包括法的事项、内容或主题,立法目的和法律名称构成要素要相互对应，分别是“反极端主义活动”“反极端主义”“去极端化”。前述法律目的或主题各异，哪一种更合理?以反极端主义作为目的并且把极端主义界定为一种复合体较为合理，理由有三。一是更利于推进极端主义源头治理。极端主义内涵和外延大于极端主义活动和极端化，极端主义活动强调行为属性，极端化强调被极端主义思想“污染”的过程和状态，反极端主义并不能简单等同于反极端主义活动和去极端化，极端主义思想本身才是更为本质性或根本性的问题，极端主义作为复合体恰恰能够凸显“思想”要素。二是节省立法成本。如果把反极端主义活动和去极端化作为立法目的，则除了界定极端主义活动和极端化内涵外，亦须专门界定作为基础概念的极端主义和厘清三者边界。还不如直接把极端主义作为核心概念，极端主义作为复合体，本质上已包含极端主义活动和极端化等意蕴，而且均已点明其本质，如需具体化亦可通过难度较低的列举方法解决。三是更符合“犯罪治理法”的特性。专门的反极端主义立法以极端主义犯罪现象为治理对象，是典型的“犯罪治理法”，其不同于传统上政府独揽犯罪治理之模式，要求社会或市场实质参与犯罪治理。犯罪现象是一个复杂系统，构成要素包括人、心理、行为、物、时空,如果把极端主义(复合体)概念作为立法目的和法律名称内容，此与犯罪现象的系统性更具一致性。

(4) Reducing linguistic ambiguity and the difficulty of legal interpretation

(四)降低语言模糊性与法律解释难度

“An indeterminate legal concept is a special type of legal concept whose intension and extension are uncertain and whose semantics are vague,”[1]1 This is a quotation from Chinese legal scholarship defining “indeterminate legal concepts.” specifically divided into empirical indeterminate legal concepts and value-based indeterminate legal concepts. As a value-based indeterminate legal concept, extremism is difficult to elucidate through perceived empirical facts, but uncertainty can be reduced through two methods: conceptual design and legal interpretation. Currently, many views on the definition of the concept of extremism use a large number of value-evaluative terms, which can be divided into four categories: first, content-evaluative, such as “ideology” and “social values”; second, behavior-evaluative, such as “violence” and “incitement to hatred or discrimination”; third, degree-evaluative, such as “extremely radical”; fourth, purpose-evaluative, such as “social, political, or religious change or demands.” Most of these belong to political science or sociological vocabulary, and some terms are already highly controversial within their own disciplines. The reuse of such vocabulary in legal concepts undoubtedly introduces controversy into the law. In the context of legal interpretation, a relatively simple method might be to directly use the meaning of the professional terms from their respective disciplines, but the result may not necessarily conform to the rules of legal interpretation, for example, it may not necessarily conform to the spirit of the constitution, the purpose of legislation, or general social concepts. At the same time, it is even less conducive to the participation of the masses in the work against extremism. Therefore, in conceptual design, the use of highly ambiguous vocabulary should be minimized from the root, while also doing a good job of vocabulary conversion and the construction of specific judgment indicators.

“不确定法律概念是法律概念的一种特殊类型，其内涵和外延具有不确定性，语义具有模糊性”,具体分为经验性不确定法律概念与价值性不确定法律概念。极端主义作为价值不确定法律概念，难以通过感知的经验事实进行阐明，但可以通过概念设计和法律解释两种方法降低不确定性。目前诸多观点对极端主义概念的界定使用了大量价值评价性词汇，可以分为四类:一是内容评价性，例如“意识形态”“社会价值观”;二是行为评价性，例如“暴力”、“煽动仇恨或歧视”;三是程度评价性，例如“极度偏激”;四是目的评价性，例如“社会、政治、宗教变革或诉求”。其中大多属于政治学或社会学词汇，部分词汇在学科内部本来就存在较大争议，法律概念再使用这些词汇，无疑是把争议引入法律之中，在法律解释语境中，较为简单的方法或许是直接使用所在学科之专业术语含义，但结果也不一定符合法律解释规则，例如不一定符合宪法精神、立法目的以及社会一般观念，同时更不利于群众参与反极端主义工作。因此，在概念设计时应从根源上尽量减少使用模糊性较高的词汇，同时做好词汇的转换工作以及具体判定指标建设。

The composite concept of extremism is a preliminary effort in this direction. The essential characteristics of extremism are mainly composed of three elements. First, the means are exclusionary. Exclusion means incompatibility, causing to leave, not allowing entry, or boycotting. The exclusionary nature of the means is consistent with the purpose of extremism, because means are the pathway to achieving a specific purpose, essentially an infringement on national or social public interests. Therefore, the determination of extremist means must consider not only the exclusionary nature of the act itself, but also the actual harmful results and real dangerous states that have been caused, as well as the causality between the act and the result. Second, the purpose violates the thought of “coexistence” (共生), where all things grow together without conflict. This is the result that extremist criminal groups and their members hope to achieve through the commission of criminal acts. As an extremist purpose, it must have obvious anti-sociality, pursue material results or specific psychological effects, and the content of the purpose must be explicit. Third, it takes theories, ideological and doctrinal systems, behaviors or styles, social systems, or propositions as its form of expression or manifestation. Extremism must be understood within the context of traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, the aforementioned political science or sociological terms are not used directly, but are transformed into terms from traditional Chinese culture. At the same time, the basic meanings of terms like theory, behavior, and social system are relatively clear. However, this concept still requires the formulation of specific judgment standards, because the use of abstract vocabulary in law is unavoidable.

极端主义的复合体概念则是往此方向初步努力的结果，极端主义本质特征主要由三个要素构成。一是手段具有排斥性。排斥是指不相容、使离开、不使进入、抵制。手段的排斥性与极端主义目的具有一致性，因为手段是实现特定目的之途径，本质上是对国家或社会公共利益的侵害。因此，对极端主义手段之认定，除了要考虑行为自身所具有的排斥性，还要考虑已经造成的实害结果和现实危险状态，以及行为与结果的因果性。二是目的违背万物并育、并行不悖的“共生”思想。此为极端主义犯罪群体及其成员希望通过实施犯罪行为达到的结果，作为极端主义目的必须具有明显的反社会性、追求物质结果或特定心理效果、目的内容具有外显性。三是以理论、思想及学说体系、行为或作风、社会制度、主张为表达或表现形态。极端主义必须置于中国传统文化中进行理解，因此，并未直接使用前述政治学或社会学等词汇，而是转化成了中国传统文化中的词汇，同时像理论、行为、社会制度等词汇的基本含义是较为明确的，但是本概念依然需要制定具体的判定标准，因为法律使用抽象性词汇是无法避免的。

(V) Balancing the Protection of Individuals’ Cultural-Spiritual Freedom with National or Social Public Interests

(五)兼顾保护人的文化－精神自由与国家或社会公共利益

The divergence in the connotation of extremism is essentially the result of weighing individuals’ cultural-spiritual freedom against national or social public interests. “The process of interest balancing is a process of constant comparison, trade-off, and choice of interests.”[2]2 This is a quotation from Chinese legal scholarship on the methodology of interest balancing. The prerequisite for interest balancing in legislation is that the cultural-spiritual sphere of individuals should and can be adjusted by law. “This depends both on the formal rationality and humanistic dimension of law, and on the legitimacy of the interests of human culture-spirit.”[3]3 This is a quotation from Chinese legal scholarship on the relationship between law and the cultural-spiritual sphere. The aforementioned views that consider extremism to be thought or theory essentially agree that anti-extremism or de-radicalization laws should adjust the ideological sphere of extremism; views that consider extremism to be behavior oppose the adjustment of the ideological sphere by law. However, based on the aforementioned basic principles of law adjusting the cultural-spiritual sphere of individuals, the basis for the opposing argument is limited to the general theory of adjusting behavior in traditional legal theory, without considering the criminal subculture attribute of extremism in criminology, nor the theoretical and practical value of extremism as an object of regulation by cultural law. One of the reasons extremist crime is difficult to eradicate is that the criminal subculture of extremism is continuously produced, disseminated, and identified with, while extremist ideology is a product of the thinking activities of an individual’s cultural-spiritual sphere.

极端主义内涵之分歧本质上是对人的文化－精神自由与国家或社会公共利益进行衡量的结果，“利益衡量的过程就是利益不断比较、权衡与取舍的过程”。立法的利益衡量前提条件是人的文化－精神领域应当且能够受法律调整，“这既取决于法律的形式理性和人文之维，也取决于人类文化－精神的利益正当性”。前述认为极端主义属于思想或理论等观点，本质上是赞同反极端主义或去极端化法律调整极端主义思想领域;认为极端主义属于行为等观点，则反对法律对思想领域的调整。但依据前述关于法律调整人的文化－精神领域之基本原理，反对方立论依据则是局限于传统法学理论中关于调整行为的一般理论，而未考虑到极端主义在犯罪学中所具有的犯罪亚文化属性，以及作为文化法管制对象的理论和实践价值。极端主义犯罪难以根除的原因之一是极端主义犯罪亚文化被持续生产、传播、认同，极端主义思想则属于个体文化－精神领域思维活动的产物。

Regarding the rules of balancing, legislators must adhere to maximizing social interests and minimizing the loss of individual interests. Views that do not clearly define the genus concept of extremism risk violating the rule of minimizing individual interest loss; views that only define the superordinate concept of extremism as behavior risk violating the rule of maximizing social interests; views that only define the genus concept of extremism as thought may also violate the rule of minimizing individual interest loss due to an unreasonable selection of essential characteristics. From the perspective of the essential characteristics of extremism, which elements are suitable to be determined as essential characteristics of extremism and how many there should be must be determined according to the aforementioned rules of interest balancing. To ensure the application of the aforementioned rules, two safeguard mechanisms must be adhered to. First, subsequent punishment (事后追惩). This is because while controlling criminal subculture according to law, it will not cause harm to people’s cultural or expressive freedom. Second, indirect intervention. Extremist ideology is formed under the influence of a series of subjective and objective factors. By regulating the factors or causes that influence the formation of extremist ideology, the adjustment of extremist ideology can be achieved indirectly. However, the law should not directly and explicitly stipulate intervention in the subjective process of the formation of extremist ideology.

就衡量规则而言，立法者要坚持社会利益最大化与个人利益损失最小化。未明确界定极端主义属概念的观点有违反个人利益损失最小化规则之嫌，仅把极端主义上位概念界定为行为等观点存在违反社会利益最大化规则之嫌;仅把极端主义属概念界定为思想等观点，也可能因本质特征择取不合理而导致违反个人利益损失最小化规则。从极端主义本质特征的角度，哪些要素适合被确定为极端主义本质特征以及数量多少均须依据前述利益衡量规则确定。为了保障前述规则的适用，尚需坚持两个保障机制。一是事后追惩。因其在依法控制犯罪亚文化的同时，不会对人们的文化或表达自由造成危害。二是间接干预。极端主义思想是在一系列主客观因素影响下产生的，通过规制影响极端主义思想产生的因素或原因，可以间接实现对极端主义思想的调整，但是法律不宜直接明文规定干预极端主义思想产生的主观过程。

In summary, anti-extremism legislation concerns national security. Defining the concept of extremism is an unavoidable issue in anti-extremism legislation. The definition of the concept of extremism must be based on China’s traditional culture and national conditions, while also being in line with international standards and adhering to the rules of legalization. Subsequently, various supporting legal normative documents must be formulated, such as specific standards for identifying various types of extremism and dynamic catalogues of extremist materials. Only in this way can the law’s fundamental, stabilizing, and long-term guaranteeing role be fully realized.

综上所述，反极端主义立法事关国家安全，界定极端主义概念是反极端主义立法无法回避的问题，极端主义概念的界定必须基于我国传统文化及国情，同时与国际接轨和遵守法治化规则，此后尚需制定各种配套的法律规范性文件，例如各类极端主义具体认定标准以及极端主义材料动态目录。只有如此，才能充分发挥法治固根本、稳预期、利长远的保障作用。

(Author bios: Wang Xiaofei, Lecturer at the School of Law, Xinjiang University of Political Science and Law, “Western Light” Visiting Scholar of the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee (China University of Political Science and Law); Zhuang Ying, Lecturer at the School of Law, Xinjiang University of Political Science and Law)

（作者简介：王肖飞，新疆政法学院法学院讲师，中组部“西部之光”访问学者(中国政法大学);庄颖，新疆政法学院法学院讲师）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心