本文選題：賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法 + 刑事和解　； 參考：《西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：藏民族地域分布廣泛、文化背景特殊,在其漫長(zhǎng)的歷史中形成了獨(dú)具特色的習(xí)慣法和糾紛解決機(jī)制。這些習(xí)慣法是藏族文化系統(tǒng)的組成部分,承載著藏族民眾特別的心理、觀念、情感和價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。賠命價(jià)就是典型體現(xiàn)。即使在制定法越來越健全的21世紀(jì),藏族習(xí)慣法例如賠命價(jià)與國(guó)家制定法在藏區(qū)的博弈從未間斷。通過對(duì)當(dāng)今甘孜藏區(qū)的實(shí)證考察,可以看到賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法與國(guó)家制定法之間的對(duì)壘依舊在上演,甘孜地區(qū)發(fā)生的刑事案件雖然都基本進(jìn)入司法程序,但與此同時(shí)民間調(diào)解——賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法卻并行不悖。 賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法的運(yùn)行活力,來自于藏區(qū)地光人稀的自然環(huán)境、粗放的生產(chǎn)方式；來自于藏民生死輪回、因果報(bào)應(yīng)、追求和諧的價(jià)值理念；來自于賠命價(jià)在藏區(qū)能夠有效解決糾紛且成本低廉的有效功能；來自于國(guó)家制定法作為一種外來文化的陌生以及忽略被害人利益的漏洞等。但不可否認(rèn)的是,賠命習(xí)慣法的運(yùn)行也存在許多不盡人意的因素,例如其作為一種自然生發(fā)的法文化,其不具有明確性,行為人對(duì)自己的行為不可預(yù)期,違背罪行法定原則；其權(quán)威性主要來自于民眾對(duì)宗教的信仰,容易導(dǎo)致宗教干預(yù)司法等。而國(guó)家制定法與賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法的雙重運(yùn)行,看似緩和了二者的矛盾,但對(duì)于加害方來說,違背了一事不再罰原則,違背了罪責(zé)自負(fù)原則。 可見兩種法律各有利弊,因此廢除“賠命價(jià)”刑事習(xí)慣法,強(qiáng)行執(zhí)行國(guó)家刑事制定法實(shí)行一刀切的做法并不可��；任由“賠命價(jià)”刑事習(xí)慣法肆意發(fā)展,也不利于藏區(qū)的法制建設(shè)及社會(huì)穩(wěn)定。因此有必要對(duì)賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法運(yùn)行的效果進(jìn)行客觀分析、理性評(píng)價(jià),探究其運(yùn)行的自然、文化背景。從而在法治現(xiàn)代化的不斷推進(jìn)的背景下,嘗試在賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法與國(guó)家統(tǒng)一制定法之間搭建一座橋梁,例如刑事和解制度,以監(jiān)督賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法的運(yùn)行,防止其濫用,并發(fā)揮賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法對(duì)國(guó)家法治建設(shè)的積極作用。 本文將分為四部分展開論述,導(dǎo)論主要介紹選題緣由和國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)界關(guān)于藏區(qū)賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法的研究現(xiàn)狀,并介紹筆者的研究思路和方法；第一章對(duì)藏區(qū)賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法的制度框架、實(shí)證運(yùn)行狀況進(jìn)行解讀,主要以四川甘孜藏區(qū)的丹巴縣為例介紹了賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法的適用范圍、適用主體、運(yùn)行程序,并從積極和消極兩方面評(píng)價(jià)賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法的運(yùn)行。第二章分別從自然環(huán)境、文化背景、國(guó)家制定法供給不足的方面分析賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法在藏區(qū)運(yùn)行的原因。第三章嘗試以刑事和解為視角,即刑事和解制度在藏區(qū)的建構(gòu),實(shí)現(xiàn)賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法與國(guó)家制定法的對(duì)接,從而為國(guó)家法整合習(xí)慣法,調(diào)適賠命價(jià)習(xí)慣法與制定法之間的沖突尋找一種出路。
[Abstract]:The Tibetan nationality has a wide geographical distribution and special cultural background, and has formed a unique customary law and dispute resolution mechanism in its long history.These customary laws are an integral part of the Tibetan cultural system and bear the special psychological, conceptual, emotional and value standards of the Tibetan people.Loss price is a typical embodiment.Even in the 21st century, the Tibetan customary laws, such as the compensation price and the state law, have never stopped in the Tibetan area.Through an empirical study of the Tibetan area of Ganzi today, we can see that the confrontation between the customary law of compensation and the law of state formulation is still going on. Although the criminal cases that have occurred in the Ganzi area have basically entered the judicial process,But at the same time, folk mediation-life-loss customary law is parallel.The operation vitality of the customary law of compensation price comes from the natural environment and extensive production mode of Tibetan people, from the cycle of life and death of Tibetan people, from karma, from the pursuit of harmonious values.It comes from the effective function that the compensation price can solve disputes effectively and the cost is low in Tibetan area; it comes from the foreign culture of the national legislation and the loopholes of ignoring the interests of the victims and so on.However, it is undeniable that there are many unsatisfactory factors in the operation of the customary law of compensation, for example, as a natural law culture, it is not clear, the actor can not expect their own behavior, violating the legal principle of crime;Its authority mainly comes from the people's belief in religion, which easily leads to religious interference in the judiciary and so on.The dual operation of the state law and the customary law of compensation for life price seems to alleviate the contradiction between them, but for the offending party, it violates the principle of no punishment of the matter and violates the principle of guilt and responsibility.We can see that the two kinds of laws have their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it is not advisable to abolish the "compensation for life" criminal customary law and enforce the national criminal law to implement a one-size-fits-all approach; and to allow the "compensation for life" criminal customary law to be wantonly developed.It is also not conducive to the construction of the legal system and social stability in Tibetan areas.Therefore, it is necessary to objectively analyze and rationally evaluate the effect of customary law of compensation price, and explore its natural and cultural background.In the context of the modernization of the rule of law, this paper tries to build a bridge between the customary law of compensation and the unified law of the state, such as the system of criminal reconciliation, in order to supervise the operation of the customary law of compensation for life and prevent its abuse.And play a positive role in the construction of the country's rule of law.This article will be divided into four parts to discuss, the introduction mainly introduces the reason of selecting the topic and the current situation of the domestic academic research on the customary law of life price in Tibetan area, and introduces the author's research ideas and methods; the first chapter introduces the institutional framework of the customary law of the compensation price of life in the Tibetan area.Taking Danba County of Ganzi Tibetan District in Sichuan Province as an example, this paper introduces the applicable scope, applicable subject, operation procedure of the customary law of life price, and evaluates the operation of the customary law of compensation price from both positive and negative aspects.The second chapter analyzes the reasons for the operation of the customary law in Tibetan area from the aspects of natural environment, cultural background and insufficient supply of national law.The third chapter tries to construct the criminal reconciliation system in Tibetan area from the angle of criminal reconciliation, to realize the connection between the customary law of compensation price and the national law, so as to integrate the customary law for the national law.To find a way out of the conflict between customary law and statutory law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D920.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 淡樂蓉;;藏族“賠命價(jià)”與國(guó)家法的漏洞補(bǔ)充問題[J];中國(guó)藏學(xué);2008年03期

2 淡樂蓉;;藏族“賠命價(jià)”習(xí)慣法與日耳曼民族“贖罪金”制度的比較研究[J];中國(guó)藏學(xué);2010年01期

3 蘇永生;;“文化的刑法解釋論”之提倡——以“賠命價(jià)”習(xí)慣法為例[J];法商研究;2008年05期

4 楊華雙;;嘉絨藏區(qū)刑事習(xí)慣法分析[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

5 蘇永生;;國(guó)家刑事制定法對(duì)少數(shù)民族刑事習(xí)慣法的滲透與整合——以藏族“賠命價(jià)”習(xí)慣法為視角[J];法學(xué)研究;2007年06期

6 徐澄清;關(guān)于“賠命價(jià)”“賠血價(jià)”問題的法律思考和立法建議[J];人大研究;1999年08期

7 鄒敏;;少數(shù)民族習(xí)慣法與國(guó)家制定法的調(diào)適——以藏族“賠命價(jià)”習(xí)慣法為例[J];西北第二民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年04期

8 劉俊哲;;藏傳佛教生態(tài)倫理試析——兼論藏傳佛教生態(tài)倫理與儒、道及西方生態(tài)倫理之同異[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2007年02期

9 南杰·隆英強(qiáng);孟繁智;;藏族習(xí)慣法如何適應(yīng)社會(huì)主義法制建設(shè)的思考——從藏族習(xí)慣法中的“賠命價(jià)、賠血價(jià)”談起[J];西藏民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

10 向朝陽,馬靜華;刑事和解的價(jià)值構(gòu)造及中國(guó)模式的構(gòu)建[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2003年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 呂志祥;藏族習(xí)慣法及其轉(zhuǎn)型研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 董朝陽;藏族賠命金習(xí)慣法與國(guó)家制定法的沖突與調(diào)適[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1758933