本文選題：審判權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：執(zhí)行權(quán)　出處：《寧波大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：黨的十八屆四中全會(huì)通過的《中共中央關(guān)于全面推進(jìn)依法治國若干重大問題的決定》提出了完善司法體制,推動(dòng)實(shí)行審判權(quán)和執(zhí)行權(quán)相分離的體制改革試點(diǎn)。本文擬從實(shí)踐中比較突出的“審執(zhí)不分”、“審執(zhí)一體”等制約執(zhí)行權(quán)行使的現(xiàn)象出發(fā),通過研究審判權(quán)執(zhí)行權(quán)行使比較順暢的域外先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)和學(xué)界關(guān)于審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)分離的相關(guān)研究的篩選,提出在新形勢下審判權(quán)和執(zhí)行權(quán)相分離體制改革的路徑,以供實(shí)踐參考。文章第一部分以審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)實(shí)際運(yùn)行情況開篇,在對審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)行使現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行綜述的基礎(chǔ)上,對審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)行使中存在的比較突出的問題進(jìn)行分析。比如,審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)的權(quán)力屬性存在混淆導(dǎo)致兩者權(quán)力邊界不清晰,實(shí)踐中的一些做法也使大眾對兩者的劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)造成了一定的曲解,執(zhí)行權(quán)地方化、上下級(jí)執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)的組織形式行政化現(xiàn)象突出等。文章第二部分對不同法域的審判權(quán)執(zhí)行權(quán)運(yùn)行模式以及學(xué)界對該兩者的相關(guān)研究成果進(jìn)行梳理分析。首先,對不同法系和不同法域國家,大陸法系代表國家德國、法國,英美法系代表國家英國、美國以及我國香港和臺(tái)灣地區(qū)等的審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)行使模式進(jìn)行梳理研究,其次,對國內(nèi)外學(xué)界關(guān)于審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)分離進(jìn)行研究和分析,主要包括2000年左右執(zhí)行權(quán)分權(quán)改革時(shí)期廣大國內(nèi)學(xué)者的相關(guān)研究成果以及近階段相關(guān)學(xué)者的最新觀點(diǎn)。再次,對各種模式進(jìn)行綜合分析篩選,提出將執(zhí)行權(quán)繼續(xù)配置在一般法院以及配置給專門執(zhí)行法院的不利之處,以及筆者認(rèn)為的恰當(dāng)?shù)呐渲梅绞健Ｎ恼碌谌糠痔岢龉P者認(rèn)為可行的分離路徑。主要分三步走,第一步先將審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)在法院內(nèi)部實(shí)現(xiàn)徹底分離,解決執(zhí)行權(quán)“低人一等”的問題,第二步探索將執(zhí)行權(quán)分項(xiàng)進(jìn)行剝離,將財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)利的執(zhí)行交由司法行政機(jī)關(guān)行使,將限制人身權(quán)利的相關(guān)執(zhí)行權(quán)交由公安機(jī)關(guān)行使,第三步逐漸實(shí)現(xiàn)執(zhí)行機(jī)關(guān)在法院相關(guān)命令下行使職權(quán),實(shí)現(xiàn)審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)的徹底分離。同時(shí),還適當(dāng)對分離后的執(zhí)行權(quán)行使和監(jiān)督模式進(jìn)行了探討。
[Abstract]:The "decision of the CPC Central Committee on comprehensively promoting the Rule of Law on several important issues" adopted by the fourth Plenary session of the 18 CPC Central Committee proposed the improvement of the judicial system. This article intends to proceed from the phenomenon of "not dividing trial and execution", which restricts the exercise of executive power, which is more prominent in practice, in order to promote the implementation of the system reform of the separation of judicial power and executive power. By studying the foreign advanced experience in the exercise of judicial power and the screening of academic research on the separation of judicial power and executive power, this paper puts forward the path to reform the system of separation of judicial power and executive power under the new situation. The first part of the article begins with the actual operation of judicial power and executive power, on the basis of summarizing the present situation of judicial power and executive power, This paper analyzes the prominent problems in the exercise of jurisdiction and executive power. For example, the confusion between the power attribute of judicial power and executive power leads to the unclear power boundary between the two. Some practices in practice have also caused the public to misinterpret the criteria for the division of the two and localize the power of execution. The second part of the article analyzes the operation mode of judicial power executive power in different jurisdictions and the academic circles' related research results. First of all, This paper combs and studies the models of the exercise of jurisdiction and executive power in different legal systems and different jurisdictions, the continental law system representing Germany, France, the Anglo-American law system on behalf of the United Kingdom, the United States and Hong Kong and Taiwan. Secondly, This paper studies and analyzes the separation of judicial power and executive power in domestic and foreign academic circles, mainly including the relevant research results of domestic scholars and the latest views of relevant scholars in recent stages during the period of power decentralization reform around 2000. Conducting a comprehensive analysis of the various models and proposing the continuing allocation of enforcement powers in the general courts and the disadvantages of allocating them to specialized enforcement courts, The third part of the article puts forward the separation path which the author thinks feasible. The first step is to completely separate the jurisdiction from the executive power within the court. To solve the problem of "inferiority" of the executive power, the second step is to explore the separation of the executive power, the transfer of the execution of the property rights to the judicial administrative organs, and the transfer of the relevant enforcement powers of restricting the personal rights to the public security organs. The third step is to gradually realize the executive organ to exercise its authority under the relevant orders of the court and to realize the complete separation of the judicial power and the executive power. At the same time, the mode of exercising and supervising the executive power after the separation is also discussed.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張展;審判權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)分離改革路徑研究[D];寧波大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號(hào)：1634883