本文選題：民事執(zhí)行權(quán) + 運行��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年博士論文

【摘要】：民事執(zhí)行制度是民事司法制度的重要組成部分,也是民眾觀察、判斷司法是否公正的主要方面。從歷史維度上著眼,民事執(zhí)行的真正制度化直到近代才得以實現(xiàn),隨著民事執(zhí)行程序的獨立化,民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的運行有效地擴展了效力范圍,并試圖達到執(zhí)行效率與公正的精致結(jié)合。然而在實踐中,傳統(tǒng)的民事執(zhí)行制度存在著許多不完善之處,大量的生效裁判未能得以執(zhí)行,執(zhí)行體制的運行問題日益突出。立足于自身的不同狀況,每個國家和地區(qū)啟動民事執(zhí)行改革的誘因并不完全相同。但是,當(dāng)不同國家和地區(qū)面對“執(zhí)行難、執(zhí)行亂”的世界性社會問題時,都將緩解民事執(zhí)行壓力的期許傾注于民事執(zhí)行制度的有效性之上,為此采取了諸多方式去改革、重塑或調(diào)整自身的民事執(zhí)行制度,英國便是其中的典型例證。作為“沃爾夫改革”的延續(xù),英國原司法大臣辦公廳自1998年起發(fā)動了立志于重塑及修正本國民事執(zhí)行制度的改革活動。推出一系列關(guān)于執(zhí)行體制和執(zhí)行程序的咨詢建議報告,以評估現(xiàn)有執(zhí)行體制的有效性為目標(biāo),開始在民事司法改革的整體框架下對執(zhí)行制度進行大刀闊斧的改革,力圖“向有效執(zhí)行奮進”。從價值層面對英國民事執(zhí)行改革活動進行分析,能夠清晰地發(fā)現(xiàn)改革過程中所包含的目的價值與形式價值之間的共生互動。由于民事執(zhí)行權(quán)是最集中體現(xiàn)執(zhí)行程序特征的要素,在民事執(zhí)行改革的過程中,只有在以追尋民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行的目的價值為取向,同時恪守民事執(zhí)行權(quán)保障私權(quán)實現(xiàn)功能的底線,建立完善的民事執(zhí)行運行及控制機制,才能在合理、有序的框架下推進民事執(zhí)行改革的實現(xiàn),本文即由此闡發(fā)。本文通過四個部分的內(nèi)容言簡意賅地探討英國民事執(zhí)行程序中出現(xiàn)的主要問題,并試圖從歷史與現(xiàn)實、改革與發(fā)展、原理與結(jié)構(gòu)、規(guī)則與判例的多重進路觸及英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行和控制機制的內(nèi)在精神。文章開篇對英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)等基本概念進行了界定,這是由于在考察民事執(zhí)行權(quán)如何運行及控制時,應(yīng)將英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的性質(zhì)作為整個民事執(zhí)行權(quán)邏輯進程的起點,從而防止整個民事執(zhí)行程序從根本上背離執(zhí)行權(quán)的特性。為了全面展現(xiàn)英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行與控制的全貌,本文以廣義的民事執(zhí)行權(quán)為研究對象,這一權(quán)力包含執(zhí)行實施權(quán)與執(zhí)行裁決權(quán)兩部分。其中,執(zhí)行實施權(quán)包含英國2007年《裁判所、法院與強制執(zhí)行法》明確規(guī)定的由非法院的執(zhí)行機構(gòu)行使的通過控制財產(chǎn)和變價出售的方式追收債務(wù)“強制執(zhí)行權(quán)”,以及法院所實施的通過“訴訟化”的方式逐步推進執(zhí)行措施的權(quán)力。正是由于英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)內(nèi)部存在這樣的職能分離,使得其兼具司法權(quán)與行政權(quán)的雙重屬性。英國民事執(zhí)行制度的發(fā)展,如果沒有創(chuàng)新與改革的接力,一直固守于傳統(tǒng),是不可能承載英美法系民事執(zhí)行制度的歷史,從而開創(chuàng)了大量民事執(zhí)行制度先河的。由此,第一章將民事執(zhí)行制度放置于英國歷史的基本脈絡(luò)中予以定位。盎格魯—撒克遜時期的英國民事執(zhí)行制度深受古日耳曼法的影響,民事執(zhí)行措施由早期的扣押對方財物制度發(fā)展而來。而英國中世紀(jì)特別是普通法形成和發(fā)展時期的民事執(zhí)行程序規(guī)則至今仍有部分繼續(xù)適用,從普通法、制定法及衡平法中確立的這些規(guī)則可以窺見英國民事執(zhí)行制度從自力救濟到自力救濟與公力救濟相結(jié)合、從紛亂混雜到條理清晰的發(fā)展脈絡(luò)。中世紀(jì)民事執(zhí)行制度對英國民事執(zhí)行實踐產(chǎn)生了重要影響,然而從18世紀(jì)后半期開始,“沒有令狀,就沒有救濟”的民事司法現(xiàn)狀越來越不適應(yīng)迅速發(fā)展變化的經(jīng)濟、政治形勢的需要,而衡平法訴訟程序在很多方面仍保留有中世紀(jì)的特征,古老而僵化,在案件審理上的嚴(yán)重拖延,促使英國于19世紀(jì)開展了司法改革。隨著1875年《司法條例》改革的實現(xiàn)以及郡法院自1846年創(chuàng)建以來的發(fā)展,在民事執(zhí)行領(lǐng)域也摒棄了形式主義的弊端,在完善原有制度的基礎(chǔ)之上,確立了一系列新的執(zhí)行措施,為英國現(xiàn)代化民事執(zhí)行制度奠定了基礎(chǔ)。至20世紀(jì)90年代,英國民事司法制度的發(fā)展仍然面臨著費用高昂、訴訟延遲、程序復(fù)雜繁瑣以及術(shù)語晦澀難懂等多重障礙,公眾對司法的不滿有增無減,新一輪的司法改革——“沃爾夫改革”在這一背景下拉開帷幕。此次改革雖未涉及民事執(zhí)行制度,但卻成為英國民事執(zhí)行改革的催化劑,原司法大臣辦公廳實施了一系列較為全面和徹底的咨詢審查,目的在于在法律制度層面增強強制執(zhí)行程序的有效性以最終實現(xiàn)現(xiàn)代社會所期望的判決獲得執(zhí)行與保護弱勢群體之間的平衡。民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的運行過程是否科學(xué)以及規(guī)范程度如何關(guān)系到民事執(zhí)行權(quán)行使的效率、功能及產(chǎn)生的實際效用,本文第二章通過考察英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行的常規(guī)面向,旨在揭示英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行的價值追求所在。由于民事執(zhí)行實施權(quán)在民事執(zhí)行權(quán)中始終占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位,強制執(zhí)行以快速、及時、不間斷地實現(xiàn)生效法律文書中所確認(rèn)的債權(quán)為己任,民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的運行價值應(yīng)當(dāng)注重體現(xiàn)效率。在這一前提下,民事執(zhí)行權(quán)在運行中,公正和效率價值各有側(cè)重。英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行的常規(guī)面向,包括運行主體、運行模式、運行保障、運行效率及運行費用。英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的運行主要通過法院與執(zhí)行機構(gòu)的二元主體共同實現(xiàn),法院享有簽發(fā)令狀及監(jiān)督執(zhí)行重大事項的權(quán)力,而執(zhí)行機構(gòu)在獲得令狀后,被賦予了實施執(zhí)行行為的權(quán)力,執(zhí)行當(dāng)事人在不服法官對執(zhí)行重大事項的裁決時享有上訴的權(quán)利,這樣的程序設(shè)置,實際上形成了以司法權(quán)制約行政權(quán)、以上訴程序制約司法權(quán)的監(jiān)督制約機制,實現(xiàn)了完整意義上的審執(zhí)分離。在運行模式方面,基于民事訴訟傳統(tǒng)模式的影響,英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的運行不可避免地推行當(dāng)事人主義模式,執(zhí)行程序的選擇權(quán)掌握在債權(quán)人手中,由債權(quán)人自主地選擇執(zhí)行措施,而這一模式卻也極易使債權(quán)人處于更加不利的境地——執(zhí)行程序推進緩慢最終判決無法獲得有效執(zhí)行。但是,執(zhí)行權(quán)在各單項執(zhí)行措施實施時也并不總是消極的,近年來英國通過民事執(zhí)行改革逐步弱化了執(zhí)行程序的當(dāng)事人主義因素,試圖吸收職權(quán)主義的合理內(nèi)核,以逐步消除民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行中當(dāng)事人主義的弊端。在運行保障方面,為使針對債務(wù)人的制裁機制更加完善,英國一方面基于債務(wù)人不能償還債務(wù)的原因?qū)⑵浞譃閮深?即“償還不能”的債務(wù)人與“不愿償還”的債務(wù)人,并加以區(qū)別對待;另一方面,對“不愿償還”的惡意債務(wù)人設(shè)置相應(yīng)的威懾機制,以保障民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的順利運行。在民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行的效率方面,英國通過增強法院在民事執(zhí)行中的主動性,轉(zhuǎn)變了法院在民事執(zhí)行程序中的職能,通過強化信息披露義務(wù)及完善債務(wù)人詢問程序暢通了執(zhí)行信息獲取的渠道,并且簡化了法律術(shù)語及申請執(zhí)行程序,這些措施均為民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行效率的提高提供了程序上的保障。英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行的費用是平衡執(zhí)行法律關(guān)系中各方主體利益的另一關(guān)鍵性問題,由于債權(quán)人、債務(wù)人以及執(zhí)行人員對自身利益的考慮不同,其對英國執(zhí)行費用體制的訴求存在較大差異,為解決債務(wù)人與執(zhí)行機構(gòu)針對費用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、費用收取的透明度以及費用制度被濫用的可能性方面產(chǎn)生的多重爭議,英國陸續(xù)開展了一系列民事執(zhí)行費用體制改革,通過設(shè)置執(zhí)行費用“上限”、引入更加靈活的債務(wù)收集程序等措施來改善民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行過程中所產(chǎn)生的利益失衡問題。任何權(quán)力的行使都不可避免地存在濫用的可能,民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的行使也不例外,如果不對民事執(zhí)行權(quán)進行必要的控制,必然會對執(zhí)行當(dāng)事人以及案外第三人的合法權(quán)益造成威脅,更遑論保障執(zhí)行權(quán)的有效運行。這一問題在英國的民事執(zhí)行領(lǐng)域表現(xiàn)得尤為突出,本文第三章則重點考察英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的控制機制。英國執(zhí)行權(quán)的控制遵循了公權(quán)對私權(quán)保障的原則,限制自力救濟的適用,在英國民事執(zhí)行改革中,就自力救濟性質(zhì)的欠租扣押制度的存廢問題進行了專門審查,經(jīng)過多年論證最終在2007年頒布的《裁判所、法院與強制執(zhí)行法》中明確廢除了普通法上適用于住所的欠租扣押財物制度。然而,在執(zhí)行過程中,很有可能因種種原因產(chǎn)生對執(zhí)行當(dāng)事人或第三人合法權(quán)益造成侵害的情形,英國的民事執(zhí)行程序賦予了執(zhí)行當(dāng)事人、利害關(guān)系人以及案外人在其私權(quán)遭到侵害時的救濟途徑。英國執(zhí)行權(quán)的控制還遵循了利益衡量的原則,由于英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)在運行過程中關(guān)涉主體之間的利益關(guān)系縱橫交錯、頗為復(fù)雜,對此,英國通過推行民事執(zhí)行改革,適當(dāng)協(xié)調(diào)民事執(zhí)行程序所涵攝的不同類型的參與主體在公法或私法上的利益關(guān)系,一方面,注重執(zhí)行機構(gòu)所維系的強制執(zhí)行權(quán)的權(quán)威性與其他利益主體私人利益之間的關(guān)系;另一方面,除維護強制執(zhí)行權(quán)應(yīng)有的權(quán)威性外,還必須保障民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行中各執(zhí)行關(guān)涉主體之間的私人利益關(guān)系。在具體控制模式上,主要通過建立以權(quán)力制約民事執(zhí)行權(quán)、以執(zhí)行當(dāng)事人和案外第三人的權(quán)利制約民事執(zhí)行權(quán)、以科學(xué)及嚴(yán)密的程序制約民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的形式,形成對民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的三重控制機制,以改變權(quán)力過度集中、濫用執(zhí)行行為和監(jiān)督制約不力的局面。并且,英國法在強調(diào)分權(quán)與制約的同時,還輔之以權(quán)力之間的配合與協(xié)調(diào),以滿足執(zhí)行效率的需要。此外,在歐洲一體化的影響下,英國的法律結(jié)構(gòu)和內(nèi)容都發(fā)生相當(dāng)大的變化,作為其中一部分的民事執(zhí)行法也有了新的內(nèi)涵和外延,英國民事執(zhí)行制度的制定法同樣受到歐盟法的影響和挑戰(zhàn)。英國民事執(zhí)行程序所遭遇的困境以“執(zhí)行難”和“執(zhí)行亂”為強烈表征,但究其本質(zhì)是民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的運行和控制體制問題。本文第四章首先對英國現(xiàn)階段推行的民事執(zhí)行改革中所確立的民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行與控制機制進行了理性分析,包括以效率為價值追求、國家角色的定位、體制上的分權(quán)、追求利益平衡的現(xiàn)實價值和意義,以及基于民事執(zhí)行權(quán)運行的當(dāng)事人主義模式而在信息收集程序、私人執(zhí)行部門監(jiān)管、執(zhí)行費用體制上存在的問題和缺陷。我國民事執(zhí)行改革的啟動與英國幾乎是同步的,英國民事執(zhí)行權(quán)與民事審判權(quán)實現(xiàn)了實質(zhì)上、體制上的分離,在這一理念意義上與我國民事執(zhí)行改革的進一步計劃和導(dǎo)向十分契合。對于我國而言,在民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的運行方面,科學(xué)設(shè)置執(zhí)行員與法官的權(quán)限劃分、建立高度信任的社會、調(diào)整國家在民間收債治理上的角色等方面將有助于全面治愈我國的“執(zhí)行難”痼疾;而在民事執(zhí)行權(quán)的控制方面,推進司法大部制下的分權(quán)制衡、保障人權(quán)、完善民事執(zhí)行救濟程序以及外部監(jiān)督機制也將為改善我國的“執(zhí)行亂”問題提供有效的途徑。
[Abstract]:The civil execution system is an important part of the civil judicial system. It is also the main aspect of the public observation and the judgment of justice. From the historical dimension, the real institutionalization of civil execution has been realized until modern times. With the independence of the civil execution procedure, the operation of civil execution power extends the scope of effectiveness effectively. However, in practice, there are many imperfections in the traditional civil execution system, a large number of effective referees fail to carry out, and the operation of the executive system has become increasingly prominent. Based on the different conditions of its own, the incentives for civil execution reform in each country and region are not the cause. However, when different countries and regions face the world social problems that are "difficult to carry out and carry out", they all put the expectation of relieving the pressure of civil execution on the effectiveness of the civil execution system. Therefore, many ways have been taken to reform, remould or adjust the civil enforcement system. As a continuation of the "Wolf reform", the former Office of the former Minister of justice of the United Kingdom launched a reform campaign to reshape and amend its civil enforcement system since 1998. It launched a series of advisory recommendations on the implementation of the system and the implementation process, aiming at assessing the effectiveness of the existing executive system and starting in civil justice. In the overall framework of the reform, the executive system is reformed in a broad manner, trying to "strive for effective implementation". From the value layer, the analysis of the civil enforcement reform activities in the UK can clearly discover the mutual interaction between the goal value and the form value contained in the process of reform, as the civil enforcement power is the most concentrated expression. In the process of civil execution reform, only in the process of civil execution reform, only in the pursuit of the goal value of the operation of civil enforcement power, while scrupulously abides by the civil enforcement power to guarantee the bottom line of the realization of the function of private rights, and establishes a perfect civil execution and control mechanism, can the civil execution reform be promoted under a reasonable and orderly framework. Through the content of the four parts, this article discusses the main problems in the British civil execution procedure, and tries to touch the inner spirit of the British civil enforcement and control mechanism from the multiple approaches of history and reality, reform and development, principle and structure, rules and precedents. The basic concepts of civil enforcement power in Britain are defined. This is due to the fact that the nature of the civil execution right should be the starting point of the whole civil execution right in the investigation of the operation and control of civil enforcement power, so as to prevent the whole civil execution from fundamentally deviating from the Executive power. The full view of the operation and control of the civil enforcement power, this article takes the broad civil execution right as the research object, which includes two parts: the executive power and the enforcement of the ruling power. Among them, the implementation of the right to implementation includes the control of property exercised by the non court executor and the enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom in 2007, the court and the enforcement law. The way of changing the price for sale is to recover the "enforcement power" of the debt, and the power of the court to step up the implementation measures by "litigation". It is because of the separation of such functions within the civil enforcement power of the UK that it has dual attributes of both judicial power and administrative power. Without the relay of innovation and reform, it has always adhered to the tradition, it is impossible to carry the history of the civil enforcement system in Anglo American legal system, thus initiating a large number of civil enforcement systems. The action system was deeply influenced by the ancient Germanic law. The civil enforcement measures were developed from the early seizure of the property system of the other side. And the rules of civil execution in the period of the formation and development of the medieval England, especially the ordinary law, still have some continued application. These rules can be seen from the common law, the formulation law and the equitable law. The civil execution system, from self relief to self relief and public relief, has been mixed from chaos to clear and clear development. The civil enforcement system in the middle ages has an important influence on the practice of civil enforcement in the UK. However, the civil judicial status of "no writ, no relief" has become more and more discomfort since the second half of the eighteenth Century. The needs of the changing economy and political situation should be rapidly developed, and the procedural procedures of equity still retain the characteristics of the Middle Ages in many respects, ancient and rigid, and the serious delay in the trial of the cases prompted the UK to carry out judicial reform in nineteenth Century. With the implementation of the 1875 "judicial regulation" reform and the establishment of the county court since its founding in 1846 In the field of civil execution, the development of civil enforcement has also abandoned the malpractice of formalism. On the basis of perfecting the original system, a series of new implementation measures have been established to lay the foundation for the modern civil enforcement system in Britain. By 1990s, the development of the civil judicial system in Britain still faced high cost, delay in litigation and complicated procedure. A new round of judicial reform, "Wolf reform", has been opened in this context. Although the reform does not involve the civil enforcement system, it has become a catalyst for the reform of civil enforcement in the UK, and the office of the former Minister of justice has carried out a series of cases. A more comprehensive and thorough consultation examination aims to enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement procedure at the legal system level so as to achieve the balance between the execution and protection of the vulnerable groups in the final judgment of the modern society. Whether the operation of the civil enforcement power is scientific and how the rules of the rule of Fan Chengdu relate to the exercise of civil enforcement power. The second chapter of this paper aims to reveal the value pursuit of the operation of British civil enforcement power by examining the general orientation of the operation of civil enforcement power in the UK. The creditor's right recognized in the law document is his duty, and the operational value of the civil execution right should be paid attention to the efficiency. Under this premise, the civil execution power has its own emphasis on the value of justice and efficiency in operation. The regular orientation of the operation of civil enforcement power in Britain includes the main body of operation, operation mode, operation guarantee, operation efficiency and operating cost. The operation of civil enforcement power is realized mainly through the two yuan main body of the court and the executive agency. The court has the power to issue a writ and supervise the execution of important matters, and the executive body, after obtaining a writ, has been given the power to implement the execution of the execution, and the litigants enjoy appeals in the case of the adjudication officer's ruling on the execution of major matters. The right, such procedure setting, actually forms the supervision and restriction mechanism that restricts the administrative power with the judicial power and restricts the judicial power by the appeal procedure, and realizes the complete separation of the adjudicatory separation. In the operation mode, the operation of the civil enforcement power inevitably carries out the litigant model based on the influence of the traditional mode of civil litigation. The option of the execution procedure is in the hands of the creditor and the creditor chooses to carry out the measures independently, but this model is also very easy to make the creditor in a more unfavorable situation - the final decision of the execution process is not effective. However, the implementation is not always negative when implementing the individual implementation measures. In recent years, Britain has gradually weakened the litigant factors of the execution procedure through the civil enforcement reform, trying to absorb the rational core of the power doctrine so as to gradually eliminate the malpractice of the litigant in the operation of the civil enforcement power. In the aspect of operation guarantee, in order to make the mechanism of the debtor more perfect, Britain is based on the debtor on the one hand. The reason why the debt cannot be repaid is divided into two categories, that is, the debtor who is not able to repay the debt and the "unwilling" debtor to be treated differently; on the other hand, a corresponding deterrent mechanism is set up for the "unwilling" malicious debtor to guarantee the CIS operation of the civil enforcement power. By strengthening the initiative of the court in the civil execution, the state has changed the function of the court in the civil execution procedure. Through strengthening the obligation of information disclosure and perfecting the debtor's inquiry procedure, it has opened the channels for the execution of information, and simplifies the legal terms and application procedures. These measures are all of the efficiency of the civil execution. The cost of the operation of civil enforcement power in Britain is another key issue of balancing the interests of all parties in the legal relationship. Because the creditors, debtors and executors have different considerations of their own interests, there is a great difference in the demand for the British executive cost system, in order to solve the debtor and the execution. In terms of cost standards, transparency of fees and the possibility of misuse of the cost system, a series of civil execution cost reforms have been carried out in Britain. By setting up the "upper limit" and introducing more flexible debt collection procedures to improve the operational process of civil execution The problem of Interest Imbalance arising from the exercise of any power inevitably has the possibility of abuse, and the exercise of civil execution is no exception. If the necessary control of the civil enforcement power is not carried out, it will inevitably threaten the lawful rights and interests of the parties to be executed and the third persons outside the case, let alone the effective operation of the guarantee of the executive power. This problem is particularly prominent in the field of civil enforcement in Britain. The third chapter of this paper focuses on the control mechanism of the British civil enforcement power. The control of the British executive power follows the principle of public power to private rights and the application of self relief. In the civil enforcement reform of Britain, the system of arrears and arrears of self relief nature is carried out in the reform of the British civil execution. The issue of storage and abolition has been specially examined. After years of demonstration, the court and enforcement law, which was promulgated in 2007, have clearly abolished the system of arrears and detainment in the ordinary law. However, it is likely to cause a violation of the legal rights and interests of the parties to the party or the third party in the process of execution. In the case of the civil enforcement procedure, the British civil enforcement procedure gives the remedy to the parties, the interested parties and the outsiders when their private rights are infringed. The control of the British executive power also follows the principle of interest measurement, which is quite complicated because the interests of the British civil enforcement power are interlocked in the process of operation. In this regard, through the implementation of civil enforcement reform and the appropriate coordination of civil execution procedures, the different types of stakeholders involved in the public law or private law, on the one hand, pay more attention to the relationship between the authority of the enforcement authority and the private interests of other stakeholders; on the other hand, to maintain the enforcement of the compulsion. In addition to the authority of the right to act, the private interests between the subjects involved in the operation of civil rights must be guaranteed. In the specific mode of control, the civil enforcement power is restricted by the establishment of power to restrict the rights of the civil execution by the rights of the parties and the third persons outside the case, and the civil enforcement is restricted by the scientific and strict procedures. The form of the right to act forms the three control mechanism of the civil enforcement power, in order to change the situation of excessive concentration of power, misuse of execution and supervision and restriction. Meanwhile, the British law, while emphasizing decentralization and restriction, also complemented the coordination and coordination of power to meet the needs of efficiency. In addition, the influence of European Integration The legal structure and content of the United Kingdom have undergone considerable changes. As a part of it, the civil enforcement law also has a new connotation and denotation.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D956.1

【共引文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬玉麗;;由“程序”而“正義”——論程序?qū)λ痉ü囊饬x[J];理論月刊;2014年04期

2 潘金貴;李冉毅;;刑事證人保護措施的適用條件[J];江西警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年01期

3 嚴(yán)本道;張俊;;司法權(quán)合理運行視域下秘密偵查法治化研究——基于2012年新刑訴法的分析[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年07期

4 徐躍飛;;論公安專業(yè)學(xué)生公正執(zhí)法意識的培養(yǎng)路徑——以程序法教學(xué)為視角[J];科教導(dǎo)刊(上旬刊);2014年11期

5 馬玉麗;郭曰君;;實質(zhì)性正當(dāng)程序的理論演變及其法律適用[J];江西社會科學(xué);2014年12期

6 孫韜;熊明;胡冬冬;;芻議非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則——基于證據(jù)法學(xué)理論的思考[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年04期

7 宋漢林;;印度環(huán)境公益訴訟制度及其對我國的啟示[J];理論導(dǎo)刊;2015年04期

8 汪建成;;《刑事訴訟法》的核心觀念及認(rèn)同[J];中國社會科學(xué);2014年02期

9 李菊明;;自己決定權(quán)的確立與保護——從武漢數(shù)千男生被集體采血驗DNA事件切入[J];政法論叢;2014年04期

10 自正法;;司法改革背景下的刑事和解——刑事司法文明的第三種模式[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2014年12期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 楊明芳;英國刑法一般辯護事由研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

2 王幼君;憲法第135條研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

3 王璐;網(wǎng)絡(luò)謠言規(guī)制研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

4 張傳偉;我國監(jiān)禁刑執(zhí)行變更的程序控制研究[D];山東大學(xué);2014年

5 徐濤;行政隱蔽調(diào)查的法律空間[D];上海交通大學(xué);2014年

6 賀紅強;刑事庭審秩序研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

7 葉銳;未定罪沒收制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 徐夢夢;我國內(nèi)陸核電項目選址決策的正當(dāng)法律程序[D];寧波大學(xué);2013年

2 劉華鈞;法官身份保障制度研究[D];浙江工商大學(xué);2013年

3 唐震;小額訴訟程序研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

4 綻逸矯;論我國的商事審判制度[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

5 王芳;政府采購信息披露制度探析[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2014年

6 楊濱碩;程序?qū)Φ仍瓌t研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2014年

7 韓潤生;中國刑事被害人權(quán)利研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2014年

8 韓偉;淺談民事訴訟中行為保全制度的完善[D];南昌大學(xué);2014年

9 張曼;我國刑事證人保護制度檢討與完善[D];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院;2014年

10 張武婕;虛假民事訴訟法律問題研究[D];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院;2014年

，

本文編號：1797496