本文選題：技術(shù)顧問 + 制度��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 為了有效應(yīng)對(duì)當(dāng)今科學(xué)技術(shù)的發(fā)展給案件事實(shí)認(rèn)定帶來的前所未有的挑戰(zhàn)、幫助事實(shí)認(rèn)定者擺脫認(rèn)識(shí)論窘境、順應(yīng)人類司法證明活動(dòng)由非理性向理性的歷史性轉(zhuǎn)變以及實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正和司法效率之間的有效平衡,我們必須讓具有解決案件專門問題的知識(shí)的專家參與到事實(shí)認(rèn)定活動(dòng)中來。其中很重要的一類專家就是技術(shù)顧問專家。 技術(shù)顧問是訴訟活動(dòng)中除專家證人、鑒定人之外的不具有裁判者主體身份的技術(shù)專家,其既不同于專家證人、鑒定人,又有別于專家裁判者。技術(shù)顧問制度是有關(guān)技術(shù)顧問的實(shí)體和程序的規(guī)范,是有關(guān)技術(shù)顧問的資格、訴訟地位、權(quán)利、義務(wù)、責(zé)任以及技術(shù)顧問參加訴訟的程序等方面的準(zhǔn)則和規(guī)范的總和。 從歷史維度來看,世界范圍內(nèi)的技術(shù)顧問制度從誕生到現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)經(jīng)歷了幾個(gè)世紀(jì)。從地域維度來比較考察技術(shù)顧問制度,我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)技術(shù)顧問制度是一項(xiàng)在世界各國普遍存在的訴訟制度。但即便是這樣一個(gè)由來已久且廣泛存在的制度,我們對(duì)其仍缺乏深刻的認(rèn)識(shí),對(duì)諸如技術(shù)顧問的稱謂等一系列問題還沒有達(dá)成共識(shí)。而且我們國家也同樣面臨著如何對(duì)訴訟中的技術(shù)顧問制度進(jìn)行合理設(shè)計(jì)的問題。因此,出于借鑒的目的,我們需要將視野轉(zhuǎn)向其他訴訟文化下的技術(shù)顧問制度,以期獲得解決本土問題的新知識(shí)。每個(gè)國家的技術(shù)顧問制度都與其所在的訴訟制度本身以及訴訟制度背后的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和歷史密不可分,而且各國面臨的司法和社會(huì)問題也有所不同。因此,各國技術(shù)顧問制度都有自己的特色。無論是英國、意大利,還是法國、俄羅斯和日本,這些國家都在其訴訟活動(dòng)中實(shí)行了技術(shù)顧問制度,但這些國家的技術(shù)顧問制度的具體內(nèi)容各不相同。不管是聘請(qǐng)技術(shù)顧問的主體還是技術(shù)顧問的具體職能和權(quán)利義務(wù),也不管是技術(shù)顧問的訴訟地位抑或參訴程序,等等方面,各國都有差異。但不爭的事實(shí)就是:各國越來越重視這類不同于專家證人、鑒定人和專家裁判者的技術(shù)專家在訴訟中的作用,在訴訟活動(dòng)中實(shí)行技術(shù)顧問制度是當(dāng)今世界訴訟制度發(fā)展的一個(gè)共同趨勢(shì)。 為了應(yīng)對(duì)科技發(fā)展給事實(shí)認(rèn)定帶來的巨大挑戰(zhàn)、解決我國司法鑒定制度存在的問題,我們國家也同樣在訴訟中實(shí)行了技術(shù)顧問制度。但無論是技術(shù)顧問制度的立法還是司法實(shí)踐都存在很多亟需解決的問題,我們需要完善民事訴訟和行政訴訟中的技術(shù)顧問制度。出于一系列的考慮:削弱我國司法鑒定的職權(quán)主義色彩、有效監(jiān)督司法鑒定活動(dòng)、防止司法腐敗、提高鑒定結(jié)論公信力、對(duì)鑒定結(jié)論進(jìn)行有效質(zhì)證以及滿足司法機(jī)關(guān)在新形勢(shì)下辦案的需要,盡管在我國刑事訴訟中實(shí)行技術(shù)顧問制度存在諸多不利因素,但我們應(yīng)該化不利為有利,建立起刑事訴訟中的技術(shù)顧問制度。 近幾年來學(xué)者們對(duì)技術(shù)顧問制度越來越關(guān)注,研究力度也越來越大,但仍不夠深刻和全面。筆者在此以比較的方法對(duì)不同訴訟文化下的技術(shù)顧問制度進(jìn)行探索,以期獲得全新的有用知識(shí)。本文的第一部分主要是關(guān)于事實(shí)認(rèn)定對(duì)專家需求的論述,是全文的理論基礎(chǔ);第二部分是對(duì)技術(shù)顧問及技術(shù)顧問制度基本知識(shí)的厘清;第三部分在著重探析幾個(gè)主要國家的技術(shù)顧問制度的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行比較研究,是在前兩部分的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)一步提出問題并分析問題;在第四部分,筆者將筆鋒轉(zhuǎn)移到我們國家的技術(shù)顧問制度上,并最終解決問題。
[Abstract]:In order to effectively cope with the unprecedented challenge of the development of science and technology to the fact finding of the case, help the factual identifier get rid of the epistemological predicament, conform to the historical transformation of the human judicial proof from the irrational to the rational, and realize the effective balance between the judicial justice and the judicial efficiency, we must let it be solved. Experts in case specific problems are involved in fact finding activities. Among them, a very important group of experts is technical consultant experts.
A technical consultant is a technical expert except the expert witness and the appraiser, which is different from the expert witness, the appraiser and the expert judge. The technical consultant system is the specification of the entity and procedure of the technical consultant, the qualification of the technical consultant, the status of the lawsuit, the right, and the meaning. Duties and responsibilities, as well as the sum of norms and norms in the proceedings of technical advisors.
From the historical point of view, the technical consultant system worldwide has gone through several centuries from its birth to the present. From the regional dimension to compare the technical advisory system, we will find that the technical advisory system is a universal legal system in the world, but even a long and widespread system, We still lack a profound understanding of it and have not reached a consensus on a series of issues such as the title of a technical consultant. Moreover, our country is also faced with the question of how to rationally design the system of technical advisers in the litigation. Therefore, for the purpose of reference, we need to shift our vision to the technology under other litigation cultures. In order to obtain new knowledge to solve local problems, the system of technical advisers in each country is closely related to its own system of litigation and the political, economic, cultural and historical background behind the litigation system, and the judicial and social problems facing each country. Whether it is Britain, Italy, France, Russia and Japan, these countries have implemented a technical advisory system in their litigation activities, but the specific content of the technical consultant system in these countries is different. Whether it is the subject of a technical consultant or the specific functions and rights and obligations of a technical consultant, or a technical consultant There are differences in various countries, such as litigation status or litigation procedure, and so on. But the fact is that countries pay more and more attention to the role of technical experts in this kind of litigation, which are different from expert witnesses, appraisers and expert judges, and the implementation of technical advisor system in litigation is a common trend in the development of the current world litigation system. Potential.
In order to cope with the great challenge of the development of science and technology to the fact, and to solve the problems in the judicial authentication system in our country, our country has also implemented the technical advisor system in the lawsuit. However, there are many problems that need to be solved in the legislative or judicial practice of the technical consultant system, and we need to improve the civil litigation and practice. The system of technical advisers in political litigation is based on a series of considerations: to weaken the authority color of judicial authentication in our country, to effectively supervise the judicial authentication activities, to prevent judicial corruption, to improve the credibility of the appraisal conclusion, to effectively verify the conclusion of the appraisal and to meet the needs of the judicial organs to handle cases under the new situation, although in our criminal proceedings. There are many unfavorable factors in the implementation of the technical consultant system, but we should disregard the advantages and establish a technical consultant system in criminal proceedings.
In recent years, scholars have paid more and more attention to the technical consultant system, and the research is becoming more and more powerful, but it is still not profound and comprehensive. In this paper, the author tries to explore the technical consultant system under different litigation cultures in order to obtain new useful knowledge. The first part of this article is about the requirement of the facts to the experts. It is the theoretical basis of the full text; the second part is the clarification of the basic knowledge of the technical consultant and the technical consultant system; the third part makes a comparative study on the basis of the analysis of the technical consultant system of several major countries, which is further raised and analyzed on the basis of the first two parts; in the fourth part, the author will Shift to the technical adviser system of our country, and finally solve the problem.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D918.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 陜西省西安市中級(jí)人民法院 孫海龍邋姚建軍;[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 王剛;專家出庭作證制度研究——兼論我國專家輔助人制度之建構(gòu)[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2004年

2 土紹芳;訴訟中的技術(shù)顧問制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2004年

3 陳琳;論民事訴訟中的專家輔助人[D];廈門大學(xué);2005年

4 周長春;試論構(gòu)建我國刑事訴訟專家輔助人制度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1976272