挑唆防衛在學說上可以區分爲「蓄意挑唆」、「其他可非難方 式所導致的防衛情狀」及「防禦挑唆」等類型。無論是我國或德國 通說均完全否定挑唆人在蓄意挑唆下的防衛行爲，但在其他兩種類 型則是給予部分限制。德國實務在「其他可非難方式所導致的防衛 情狀」這種類型中發展出了所謂的「三階段理論」作爲限制挑唆人 防衛行爲的方式。但如果我們從正當防衛的法理基礎之一，亦即個 人利益的保護角度出發，就可以得出一個結論：無論在哪種挑唆防 衛類型，都不應該全盤否定挑唆人的正當防衛權利。在這個前提 下，本文認爲三階段理論亦應適用於蓄意挑唆，只不過在運用上應 該更爲嚴格。至於防禦挑唆的問題點並非如部分實務及學說見解所 認爲的在於應否限制防衛行爲的方式或手段，而應該是在於防衛行 爲必要性的判斷時點提前的問題。

Theoretically, “provocation for self-defense” may be divided into several categories: “intentional provocation”, “self-defense situations incurred by other blamable behaviors” as well as “provocation for defense”. According to the mainstream doctrines in both Germany and Taiwan, the defense under intentional provocation conducted by the person who initially provoked the aggressor (“initial aggressor”) is not regarded as self-defense at all; the other two categories are recognized with limitations. The relevant court decisions in Germany have developed a three-stage theory based on the “self-defense situations incurred by other blamable acts” in order to restrict the self-defense behaviors of the initial aggressor. Otherwise, if we turn back to one of the jurisprudence bases for self-defense, protection of individual interest, we will come to the conclusion that the right of self-defense of the initial aggressor should not be denied completely. Under this circumstance, the author is of the opinion that the three-stage theory should also be applicable to intentional provocation with stricter conditions. With regard to the “provocation for defense”, the focus is not whether the methods or behaviors of self-defense should be restricted or not according to some practical and theoretical opinions, but an earlier stage for determining the necessity of self-defense behaviors.