刑法因果关系论由传统论争向当代论争转变，事实归因与规范归责二分是当前因果关系理论的共同走向，条件说由此成为归因层面的“无冕之王”，但二分的框架也使得条件说面临解释的困境。在假定因果和择一因果关系中，条件公式的原型需要加以修正；在不作为的因果关系中，条件说浸染了规范评价的色彩，归因归责的严格框架实则被打破；在新型因果关系中，条件说的实质内容渐趋空泛，疫学因果关系反而得到提倡，条件说在归因层面的垄断地位值得怀疑。渎职罪因果关系问题是总则因果关系理论的进一步展开，但有其特殊性所在。通过对实务判例的梳理，可提炼出具体的司法难点。因果关系论的发达与渎职实务认定的简陋形成鲜明比对，客观归责理论具有十分重要的方法论优势，在渎职罪司法实务中的应用前景十分可观。渎职罪因果关系认定过程中，“作为犯”、“不作为犯”、“故意犯”、“过失犯”等范畴存在一定程度的交叉，有必要作类型化解读。作为理性构建的“精致化产物”，客观归责理论在两个意义上被使用，即与因果关系理论相对应意义上的客观归责理论以及作为一种实质构成要件理论的客观归责理论。借助该理论，可以有效统筹渎职罪中故意犯、过失犯、不作为犯的归责问题，并作出新的表述。 就故意的作为犯而言，归因归责二分的框架尚且能够得到维持，在归因层面仍然适用条件说，归责层面则交由客观归责理论予以处理。就过失的作为犯而言，归因归责二分的框架也能够得到维持，同故意的作为犯一样，在归因层面仍然适用条件说。以“客观注意义务的违反”进行展开的传统过失论的判断方法可以消融在客观归责理论的具体规则中，但“客观注意义务”这一概念仍有独立存在的意义，客观注意义务的违反对应制造法所不允许的风险层面，结果避免可能性则对应实现法所不允许的风险层面，最后通过“构成要件的效力范围”来解决被害人有意识地从事自我危害行为等归责问题。就不作为犯而言，归责突破了归因，且反噬了归因，条件说无单独评价的实益。保证人义务的违反对应制造法所不允许的风险层面，结果避免可能性则对应实现法所不允许的风险层面，最后也通过“构成要件的效力范围”来解决被害人有意识地从事自我危害行为等归责问题。客观归责理论话语下所作出的新的表述能够经受司法判例的检验，并与之形成良性互动。

The theory of causality in criminal law is transforming from the traditional debate to the contemporary debate, and the fact of dimidiate separation between factual attribution and normative imputation is the common trend of current theory of causality. As a result, conditioning theory become “uncrowned king” in the attribution level, but such a dimidiate framework also exposes it to a predicament of interpretation. In the hypothetical causality and alternative causality, the prototype of conditioning theory needs to be fixed. Meanwhile, in the causality of non-action, the conditioning theory is infected with the color of normative evaluation, and the strict framework of attribution and imputation is broken actually. What’s more, the substance of conditioning theory become empty gradually in the new-type causality, while the epidemiology causality has been advocated. Therefore, the monopoly position of conditioning theory is doubtful. The problem of causality in malfeasance crime is the future expansion of the general causality in pandect of criminal law, but it still has itself particularity. According to the check of practical precedents, judicial difficult points can be extracted specially. The prosperity of causality in pandect of criminal law stands in sharp contrast to the briefness of practical judgment in malfeasance crime. The objective imputation theory has very important methodological advantages and the application prospect of judicial practice in malfeasance crime is very considerable. Owning to a certain degree of cross in the categories of “action crime”, “non-action crime”, “intentional crime” and “negligent crime”, it is necessary to make a typological interpretation in the judgment of causality in malfeasance crime. As the “refined product” of rational construction, the objective imputation theory has been used in two meanings, one corresponds to the causality theory and the other corresponds to the essential constructive factors theory. With the help of the objective imputation theory, the imputation of intentional crime, negligent crime and non-action crime in malfeasance crime can be figured out effectively. Moreover, a new representation will be made. In terms of intentional action crime, even the dimidiate separation between attribution and imputation can be maintained. The conditioning theory is still applied on the attribution level and the objective imputation theory is handled on the imputation level. In terms of negligent action crime, the dimidiate separation between attribution and imputation can also be maintained. The conditioning theory is still applied on the attribution level as same as intentional action crime. The judgment method of traditional negligence theory based on “violation of objective duty of care” can be melted in the specific rules of the objective imputation theory, but the conception of “objective duty of care” still have the significance of independent existence. The violation of objective duty of care corresponds to the level of manufacturing illegal risk and possibility of avoiding result corresponds to the level of realizing illegal risk. Finally, through the “validity scope of component” to solve the problems such as deliberate elf harm behavior. In terms of non-action crime, imputation break through attribution and corrode attribution. The evaluation of the conditioning theory is of no significance. The violation of guarantor obligation corresponds to the level of manufacturing illegal risk and possibility of avoiding result corresponds to the level of realizing illegal risk. Finally, through the “validity scope of component” to solve the problems such as deliberate elf harm behavior. The representation in the objective imputation theory’s utterance can be tested by judicial precedents. As a result, a kind of benign interaction between the new representation and judicial precedents will be formed.