规范性构成要件要素作为组成构成要件的最基本单位，同样属于构成要件中的重要内容，但相较于构成要件理论一直被刑法学者视为犯罪论的重要内容，并投入大量精力研究，规范性构成要件要素理论研究则并没有引起我国刑法界的重视，在其界定与类型划分方面基本沿袭了德、日刑法理论的研究思路，并没有对其展开大量的理论探讨。由于规范性构成要件要素所具有价值属性，需结合法律规范、社会规范等内容来进行具体评价，尤其是我国现实生活中所存在的社会规范是与其他国家明显不同的，因此，完全按照他国的刑法理论来解释我国犯罪构成体系中所存在的规范性构成要件要素是不妥的。基于此，为了能够厘清规范性构成要件要素在我国犯罪构成体系中所体现出的价值，并进一步解释其在我国司法适用中应然标准，本文在大陆法系刑法理论关于规范性构成要件要素的理论研究基础上，并结合我国的实际情况，对规范性构成要件要素的存在依据、内涵、特征、类型划分以及所涉及的其他理论问题进行分析。全文主要分以下五个部分：
第一章是对于规范性构成要件要素的理论溯源。通过分析构成要件理论的发展过程，从理论的历史进程之中找寻规范性构成要件要素所存在的依据。构成要件理论最初由刑事诉讼中的特别纠问程序发展而来，之后贝林所创立的构成要件理论认为构成要件是价值无涉的内容。在此基础上，迈耶提出构成要件是违法性判断的认识根据，再到之后麦兹格的存在根据说，改变了构成要件价值无涉的观点。可以发现，借助于法哲学的实证主义及新康德主义的理论，进一步证实了构成要件并非价值中立的内容，因而证实了规范性构成要件要素所存在的客观依据，因此，规范性构成要件要素经历了被否定存在到发现、并被广泛承认的演进过程。此外，从历史发展的角度可以发现，在人类历史发展进程之中，规范性构成要件要素早已被各个时期的政权统治阶级纳入了刑事处罚的律法之中，即便它属于一种文化的、社会认识的价值范畴，但它却是客观存在于不同社会时期的刑事律法之中。因此，规范性构成要件要素属于客观存在的内容。
第二章是针对规范性构成要件要素的内涵梳理。列举大陆法系刑法理论和我国台湾地区对于规范性构成要件要素的既存观点，以及我国刑法理论中现有的观点，分析各观点之中的优势及不足之处，为之后界定我国犯罪构成体系中规范性构成要件要素的应有内涵提供帮助。规范性构成要件要素作为构成要件中的重要内容，如果对其开展理论研究，则需要在犯罪构成及构成要件的理论基础上进行。因此，在界定规范性构成要件要素理论研究的理论根基之后，则需要分析在法律规范中，语言文字的创造性会使由法律用语所表达的法律概念呈现出内涵及外延的不确定属性，尤其是规范性构成要件要素。因此，应当确定规范性构成要件要素的理解方式。之后在阐述法律规范性的内涵的基础上，进一步分析规范性构成要件要素中规范性的意义指向，从而为其于其他类别的构成要件要素进行区分。其中规范性构成要件要素与记述性构成要件要素之间以是否存在价值补充为区分标准；而相较于不成文构成要件要素，规范性构成要件要素是存在依据其他社会规范进行价值判断的情况，并且，规范性构成要件要素也存在成文与不成文两种类型。
第三章是对规范性构成要件要素的特征及其类型的阐述。在分析过规范性构成要件要素的内涵之后，可以发现其所体现出的本质特征，包括存在的普遍性、演绎变化性、互相转化型的特征，由此可知，规范性构成要件要素呈现出开放结构的属性。因而便需要对规范性构成要件要素与开放构成要件以及空白罪状之间的关系进行阐明。开放构成要件理论虽然发源于三阶层犯罪构成体系，但在我国四要件体系下同样具有适用的空间，不过需要注意不同于三阶层体系，在我国犯罪构成体系中，开放构成要件的内容并不等同于规范性构成要件要素，而只能将规范性构成要件要素视为开放构成要件内容的一种有效表现方式。对于空白罪状而言，其属于参照其他法律法规补充犯罪成立所必需的客观构成要件要素，即通过补充来使具体犯罪构成完整，而规范性构成要件要素则强调法官借助其他法律法规对该要素进行价值补充的解释，空白罪状与规范性构成要件要素在基于犯罪构成要件内容不完整，需要借助其他法律法规进行价值评价的情况下存在内容重合。之后，针对规范性构成要件要素的类型划分，不应当局限于某一特定的分类标准，而应当根据不同的划分标准进行不同的分类，从而能够在实践之中适用提供帮助。
第四章是规范性构成要件要素的功能进行剖析。首先是规范性构成要件要素所具有的理论整合机能，作为构成要件组成内容的规范性构成要件要素，其自身所具有的开放性结构反向地影响构成要件的属性，从而强化了我国犯罪构成体系的开放性。同时规范性构成要件要素对行为所进行的价值评价，有效地连接了事实与价值，从而证明了我国传统犯罪构成体系并非属于他人所批判的重事实、而轻规范的理论体系，更不存在所谓的经验判断与规范判定纠缠不清的状况。规范性构成要件要素的自身属性也决定了我国传统的犯罪构成体系，属于通过实质解释犯罪构成要件，具备了客观事实是否符合刑法规范的思维逻辑，进而判定行为成立犯罪的过程属于动态过程。其次，在确定构成要件具有违法推定的机能之后，由于构成要件的价值需要由规范性构成要件要素所反映，因此，通过对这类要素进行价值的评判，才能够确定行为在形式上符合构成要件即违反行为规范，实质上具有侵害法益的危险，从而最终推定行为具有违法性。也即规范性构成要件要素作为构成要件的组成部分，具有实现构成要件的推定违法机能的属性。最后，规范性构成要件要素具有推定主观罪的机能，由于犯罪是违反刑法并且在刑法规范意义上具有责任非难的行为，因而依据行为无价值二元论判断违法性的路径，并结合法的责任论所确定的责任实质内容，可以说明，犯罪行为不仅违反了行为规范且具有侵犯法益的危险，犯罪行为人也具有在刑法意义上值得被处罚的责任。而规范性构成要件要素则能够作为证明行为人责任故意的依据，进一步强化对行为人责任故意的判断结论。因而行为人在主观上有认知规范性构成要件要素的必要性，并且，由于行为人认知能力的不同，可能导致对于规范性构成要件要素认识错误的情况，对此，则需要依据外行人平行评价标准来判定该认识错误的类型，究竟是事实认识错误抑或是法律认识错误，从而决定行为人是否成立犯罪以如何量刑。
第五章是对规范性构成要件要素的实践运作的分析。首先在立法层面，虽然罪刑法定明确性原则要求刑法立法必须具备明确性，但实质上明确性原则的内在要求是相对明确的，即在保证个案正义的基础上，实现刑法的人权保障机能，需要刑法规范具有灵活解释的适用空间。与此同时，规范性构成要件要素与罪刑法定原则之间并非如传统认知是存在冲突，反而基于明确性原则所体现的相对明确性，规范性构成要件要素与罪刑法定明确性原则是内在契合的。其次在刑法立法层面，规定规范性构成要件要素应当秉持一定的原则，即以记述性构成要件要素为主、规范性构成要件要素为辅以及注重事实与规范相结合的原则，而在具体举措中则应当以成文的规范性构成要件要素作为主要规定形式，不成文的规范性构成要件要素的辅助形式，从而使具体犯罪之犯罪构成的确定能够严格遵守罪刑法定主义，实现个别正义与一般正义的完美融合。同时，适当增加例示性规定为理解规范性构成要件要素的内涵提供帮助。最后，在司法认定层面，对规范性构成要件要素在司法认定现状进行反思，通过梳理目前实践中适用的方式，并分析其中的不足，从而为合理正确的运用思路提供思维方式，即在司法实践中，应当注意刑法司法解释的完善，不仅需要依循一定的制定原则，还需要严格限制制定主体范围，并有效地结合指导性案例，从而为解释规范性构成要件要素提供更为明确的法律依据。与此同时，还需要合理限缩法官的自由裁量权，以实质解释论指导法官适用自由裁量权，并以谦抑性作为约束，从而在实践中能够准确地认定规范性构成要件要素。

The normative constituent elements, as the most basic unit of constituent elements, also belong to the important content of constituent elements. However, compared to the theory of constituent elements, which has always been regarded as an important content of crime theory
by criminal law scholars and has invested a lot of effort in research, the research on the normative constituent elements theory has not attracted the attention of the criminal law community in China. In terms of its definition and classification, it basically follows the
research ideas of German and Japanese criminal law theories, There has been no extensive theoretical exploration of it. Due to the value attributes of normative constituent elements, specific evaluations need to be made in conjunction with legal norms, social norms, and other
content. Especially, the social norms that exist in China's real life are clearly different from other countries. Therefore, it is inappropriate to fully interpret the normative constituent elements in China's criminal constitution system based on the criminal legal principles of other countries. Based on this, in order to clarify the value of normative constituent elements in China's criminal constitution system and further explain their corresponding standards in China's judicial application, this article, based on the theoretical research on normative constituent elements in the criminal law theory of the continental legal system, and combined with the actual situation in China, explores the basis, connotation, characteristics, and significance of normative constituent elements Analyze the classification of types and other theoretical issues involved. The full text is mainly divided into the following five parts:
The first chapter is the theoretical tracing of the normative constituent elements. By analyzing the development process of the theory of constitutive elements, the basis for the existence of normative constitutive elements is sought from the historical process of the theory. The theory of constitutive elements was initially developed from the special interrogation procedure in criminal litigation, and later, the constitutive element theory established by Beling believed that constitutive elements were content without value. On this basis, Mayer proposed that the constituent elements are the cognitive basis for determining illegality, and then changed the view that the value of the constituent elements does not involve the existence basis of Mezger. It can be found that, with the help of the theory of positivism of legal philosophy and Neo-Kantianism, the constituent elements are not value neutral, thus confirming the objective basis for the existence of the normative constituent elements. Therefore, the normative constituent elements have experienced the evolution process from being denied to being discovered and widely recognized. In addition, from the perspective of historical development, it can be found that in the process of human historical development, normative constituent elements have long been included in the criminal punishment law by the ruling class of different periods of political power. Even though it belongs to a cultural and social value category, it objectively exists in the criminal law of different social periods. Therefore, the
elements of normative constituent elements belong to objective content. 
The second chapter is a review of the connotation of normative constituent elements. List the existing viewpoints on normative constituent elements in mainland legal system criminal law theory and Taiwan region, as well as the existing viewpoints in China's criminal law theory, analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each viewpoint, and provide assistance in defining the necessary connotations of normative constituent elements in China's criminal constitution system in the future. As an important component of the normative constituent elements, if theoretical research is conducted on them, it needs to be based on the theoretical foundation of criminal composition and constituent elements. Therefore, after defining the theoretical basis of theoretical research on normative constituent elements, it is necessary to analyze that in legal norms, the creativity of language will make the legal concept expressed by legal terms present uncertain attributes of connotation and extension, especially the normative constituent elements. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the way in which normative constituent elements are understood. On the basis of elaborating on the connotation of legal standardization, further analyze the significance of standardization in the constituent elements of standardization, in order to distinguish it from other types of constituent elements. The standard for distinguishing between normative constituent elements and descriptive constituent elements is whether there is a value supplement; Compared to unwritten constituent elements, normative constituent elements exist in situations where value judgments are based on other social norms, and there are also two types of normative constituent elements: written and unwritten.
The third chapter elaborates on the characteristics and types of normative constituent elements. After analyzing the connotation of normative constituent elements, it can be found that they embody essential characteristics, including universality, deductive variability, and mutual transformation. Therefore, it can be seen that normative constituent elements exhibit an open structure attribute. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between normative constituent elements, open constituent elements, and blank counts. Although the theory of open constituent elements originated from the three-level criminal constitution system, it also has room for application under the four element system in China. However, it should be noted that it is different from the three-level system. In China's criminal constitution system, the content of open constituent elements is not equivalent to normative constituent elements, but can only be regarded as an effective manifestation of the content of open constituent elements. For blank counts, they belong to the objective constituent elements that are necessary for supplementing the establishment of a crime by referring to other laws and regulations, that is, to complete the specific criminal constitution through supplementation, while normative constituent elements emphasize that judges use other laws and regulations to supplement the value of the element. Blank counts and normative constituent elements are incomplete based on the content of the criminal constituent elements, When there is a need to use other laws and regulations for value evaluation, there may be content overlap. Afterwards, the classification of normative constituent elements should not be limited to a specific classification standard,  but should be based on different classification standards to provide assistance in practical application. 
The fourth chapter is the analysis of the function of normative elements. Firstly, the theoretical integration function of the normative constituent elements, as the constituent elements of the normative constituent elements, their own open structure negatively affects the attributes of the constituent elements, thereby strengthening the openness of China's criminal constitution system. At the same time, the value evaluation of normative constitutive elements on behavior effectively connects facts and values, thereby proving that China's traditional criminal constitutive system does not belong to the theoretical system that emphasizes facts but neglects norms criticized by others, and there is no so-called entanglement between empirical judgment and normative judgment. The inherent attributes of normative constituent elements also determine the traditional criminal constitution system in China. It belongs to the dynamic process of interpreting criminal constituent elements through substance, possessing the logical thinking of whether objective facts comply with criminal law norms, and then determining whether an act constitutes a crime. Secondly, after determining that the constituent elements have the function of illegal presumption, as the value of the constituent elements needs to be reflected by the normative constituent elements, the evaluation of the value of these elements can determine that the behavior formally conforms to the constituent elements, i.e. violates the behavioral norms, and essentially has the risk of infringing on legal interests, thus ultimately inferring that the behavior has illegality. That is to say, as a component of the constituent elements, the normative constituent elements have the attribute of realizing the presumption of illegality function of the constituent elements. Finally, the normative constituent elements have the function of inferring subjective crimes. As a crime is a violation of the criminal law and has a sense of responsibility in the criminal law norms, the path of determining illegality based on the dualism of worthless behavior can be determined. Combined with the substantive content of responsibility determined by the legal responsibility theory, it can be explained that the criminal act not only violates the behavioral norms but also carries the risk of infringing on legal interests, The perpetrator also bears the responsibility of being punished in the sense of criminal law. The normative constituent elements can serve as the basis for proving the actor's intentional responsibility, further strengthening the judgment conclusion of the actor's intentional responsibility. Therefore, it is necessary for the actor to subjectively recognize the elements of normative constituent elements, and due to the different cognitive abilities of the actor, it may lead to incorrect understanding of the elements of normative constituent elements. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the type of understanding error based on the parallel evaluation criteria of outsiders, whether it is a factual understanding error or a legal understanding error, in order to determine whether the actor has committed a crime and how to sentencing.
The fifth chapter is the analysis of the practical operation of normative elements. Firstly, at the legislative level, although the principle of clarity in criminal law requires that criminal law legislation must have clarity, the inherent requirement of the principle of clarity is relatively clear, that is, to achieve the human rights protection function of criminal law on the basis of ensuring individual case justice, criminal law norms need to have flexible interpretation and application space. At the same time, there is no conflict between the normative constituent elements and the principle of legality of crime and punishment, as traditional cognition suggests. On the contrary, based on the relative clarity reflected in the principle of clarity, the normative constituent elements are inherently consistent with the principle of clarity in criminal law. Secondly, at the legislative level of criminal law, the normative constituent elements should adhere to certain principles, that is, the descriptive constituent elements should be the main element, the normative constituent elements should be supplemented, and the principle of combining facts and norms should be emphasized. In specific measures, the written normative constituent elements should be the main form of regulation, and the unwritten normative constituent elements should be the auxiliary form, Thus, the determination of the criminal composition of specific crimes can strictly adhere to the principle of legality, achieving a perfect integration of individual justice and general justice. At the same time, appropriate addition of illustrative provisions provides assistance in understanding the connotation of normative constituent elements. Finally, at the level of judicial determination, we should reflect on the status quo of normative constituent elements in judicial determination, sort out the applicable ways in current practice, and analyze their shortcomings, so as to provide a way of thinking for rational and correct application of ideas. That is, in judicial practice, we should pay attention to the improvement of judicial interpretation of criminal law, not only following certain formulation principles, but also strictly limiting the scope of the formulation subject, And effectively combine with guiding cases to provide a clearer legal basis for interpreting the elements of normative components. At the same time, it is also necessary to reasonably limit the discretionary power of judges, guide their application of discretionary power with substantive interpretation theory, and use humility as a constraint, so as to accurately identify normative constituent elements in practice.