司法行政权配置的历史演进与现实选择

发布时间：2018-06-08 07:21

本文选题：司法行政权 + 司法改革　；参考：《山东大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：司法职权优化配置是近年来我国司法改革的重要命题,“深化司法体制改革,优化司法职权配置,规范司法行为,建设公正高效权威的社会主义司法制度”被视为我国司法体制和工作机制改革的重要目标。作为司法职权的有机组成部分,司法行政权被界定为辅助审判权行使的行政事务管理权,包含着审判事务管理权、司法政务管理权、司法人事管理权和司法裁判执行权。司法行政权的合理配置关联着法院管理、法院与司法行政机构的关系,关联着以司法独立作为基本目标的法院“去行政化”、法院“去地方化”运动以及法院管理制度、法院经费制度和法院人事管理制度改革。司法行政权配置固然强调如何在保障司法权有效运作的前提下尽可能的避免行政权和行政作用的侵蚀和干扰,但如何避免其所指向的司法独立因权力制衡机制的失灵而演变成为司法专横,同样是司法行政权配置所应重视的基本命题。行政作用保障与行政权力干预、司法独立与司法专横所交错形成的网络,构成了司法行政权配置的逻辑困境。这种困境,不但演绎成为了中国清末新政以来司法行政权在行政系统与司法系统的冲突以及隶属关系的反复过程,还具体化为东西方各国司法行政权配置诸种模式之间的差异。长期以来行政主导一切的制度传统和权力配置资源的本质特征在司法权体系中的结合,导致了司法审判权与司法行政权关系的扭曲,司法行政权的扩张与异化,使司法审判权不但丧失优势地位,反而产生运转困境,不得不依附于行政权,司法行政化弥漫在整个司法体制内。同时,司法行政权配置中隔离机制的缺失形成了司法地方化问题,产了法院对于地方政府的物质依赖和人事依赖结构,法院受制于地方政府,服务于地方发展,以地方政府的立场作为自己的立场,“国家法院”蜕化成为“本地法院”。总结清末新政以来我国司法行政权配置的历史演进和以日本、美国、法国为代表的西方国家司法行政权配置的共性规律,未来的改革方案必须回应当前我国法院系统存在的相对较为严重的司法行政化和司法地方化问题。包含司法行政权配置在内的司法改革,应当以塑造司法公信力为根本目标,以审执分离、司法财政和人事管理改革作为突破口,纯粹法院的审判职能、提高裁判的客观性与公正性,克服法院的行政化和地方化危机。司法行政权配置本身就是一道开放式的多选项命题,最佳选项的确定也应当是多元的和开放的,笔者主张实现司法行政权的动态配置,根据司法发展的不同阶段选择不同配置模式,在诸种方案之间灵活选择、因时调整。
[Abstract]:The optimal allocation of judicial authority is an important proposition of judicial reform in China in recent years. "deepen the reform of judicial system, optimize the allocation of judicial authority, standardize judicial behavior," Building a fair, efficient and authoritative socialist judicial system is regarded as an important goal of the reform of judicial system and working mechanism in our country. As an organic part of the judicial power, the judicial administrative power is defined as the administrative affairs management power, which includes the judicial affairs management power, the judicial administrative administration power, the judicial personnel management power and the judicial adjudication executive power. The rational allocation of judicial administrative power is related to the court management, the relationship between the court and the judicial administrative organ, the "de-administration" of the court with the basic goal of judicial independence, the movement of "delocalization" of the court and the court management system. The reform of the court funding system and the court personnel management system. Of course, the allocation of judicial administrative power emphasizes how to avoid as much as possible the erosion and interference of the administrative power and the administrative role on the premise of ensuring the effective operation of the judicial power. However, how to avoid the judicial independence that it points to evolves into judicial arbitrariness because of the malfunction of power balance mechanism, is also the basic proposition that should be paid attention to in the disposition of judicial administrative power. The network of administrative function guarantee and administrative power intervention judicial independence and judicial arbitrariness constitute the logical dilemma of judicial administrative power allocation. This dilemma has not only become the repeated process of the conflict between the administrative power in the administrative system and the judicial system and the relationship between the administrative power and the judicial system since the New deal in the late Qing Dynasty. It also concretely translates into the differences between the various modes of judicial and administrative power allocation between the East and the West. The combination of the system tradition of the long-time executive-dominated system and the essential characteristics of the power allocation resources in the judicial power system, It leads to the distortion of the relationship between the judicial jurisdiction and the judicial administrative power, the expansion and alienation of the judicial administrative power, which makes the judicial jurisdiction not only lose its superior position, but also produce the operating predicament, and it has to be attached to the administrative power. The administration of justice pervades the entire judicial system. At the same time, the lack of isolation mechanism in the allocation of judicial administrative power forms the problem of judicial localization, which produces the material and personnel dependence structure of the court to the local government, and the court is restricted by the local government and serves the local development. Taking the position of the local government as its own position, the "national court" has been transformed into a "local court". This paper summarizes the historical evolution of the allocation of judicial administrative power in China since the late Qing Dynasty, and Japan, the United States, France is the representative of the western countries in the common law of the allocation of judicial executive power, the future reform plan must respond to the relatively serious problems of judicial administration and judicial localization existing in the current court system of our country. The judicial reform, including the allocation of the judicial and administrative power, should take shaping the judicial credibility as the fundamental goal, taking the separation of trial and execution, the reform of judicial finance and personnel management as the breakthrough point, and the purely judicial function of the court. To improve the objectivity and impartiality of the referee and overcome the crisis of the administration and localization of the court. The allocation of judicial administrative power itself is an open multi-option proposition, and the determination of the best option should also be pluralistic and open. The author advocates the realization of the dynamic allocation of judicial administrative power. According to the different stages of judicial development, choose different allocation mode, flexible choice among various schemes, due to time adjustment.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926

【参考文献】