本文選題：檢察權(quán) + 司法　； 參考：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：上世紀(jì)90年代末,學(xué)界開始對(duì)檢察機(jī)關(guān)和檢察權(quán)進(jìn)行反思,先后對(duì)檢察權(quán)的性質(zhì)和權(quán)能等問題展開了廣泛的研究和論戰(zhàn)。這一反思和論戰(zhàn)從學(xué)界彌漫到實(shí)務(wù)界,從訴訟法專業(yè)蔓延到憲法、法理專業(yè),前后持續(xù)十來年,形成了行政權(quán)說、司法權(quán)說、雙重屬性說和法律監(jiān)督權(quán)說等觀點(diǎn)。本文通過反思以往研究當(dāng)中的不足和檢察權(quán)實(shí)踐當(dāng)中的困境,徹底分析了檢察權(quán)性質(zhì)的認(rèn)定問題：檢察權(quán)性質(zhì)的定位應(yīng)當(dāng)著眼于構(gòu)建我國(guó)法治支點(diǎn)的高度,將它定位為司法權(quán),增強(qiáng)檢察機(jī)關(guān)的獨(dú)立性和檢察權(quán)行使的程序正當(dāng)性。本文同時(shí)主張以檢察權(quán)權(quán)能為單位對(duì)檢察權(quán)進(jìn)行復(fù)合理解：檢察權(quán)是一項(xiàng)包括公訴權(quán)、審判監(jiān)督權(quán)、檢察偵查權(quán)等在內(nèi)的權(quán)力束；這一權(quán)力束的性質(zhì)并不是單一純粹的,其中公訴權(quán)、審判監(jiān)督權(quán)等明顯具有司法性質(zhì),而檢察自偵權(quán)等則明顯具有行政性質(zhì)。認(rèn)清這些子項(xiàng)權(quán)力的屬性,并作出準(zhǔn)確的區(qū)分,是優(yōu)化檢察權(quán)建設(shè)的前提。對(duì)于檢察權(quán)當(dāng)中的司法性權(quán)能,應(yīng)當(dāng)加強(qiáng)獨(dú)立性和程序性改造；對(duì)于檢察權(quán)當(dāng)中的行政性權(quán)能,應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循權(quán)力制約的基本規(guī)律加以審查和規(guī)制。全文共60000字左右,分為五章： 第一章檢察權(quán)性質(zhì)：多維視角與復(fù)合理解。本章從政治學(xué)的角度明確區(qū)分司法權(quán)和行政權(quán)的差別與關(guān)系,分別從應(yīng)然和實(shí)然的認(rèn)識(shí)路徑對(duì)檢察權(quán)的定性問題進(jìn)行了分析,認(rèn)為檢察權(quán)同時(shí)具有司法性和行政性的屬性,并且出于我國(guó)法治支點(diǎn)建構(gòu)的考慮,主張將檢察權(quán)作為司法權(quán)來塑造,增強(qiáng)它的獨(dú)立性和程序正當(dāng)性。 第二章中國(guó)檢察權(quán)司法化改造論綱。本章分別考察檢察權(quán)各項(xiàng)權(quán)能的屬性,認(rèn)為公訴權(quán)和審判監(jiān)督權(quán)作為司法權(quán)的重要成分,應(yīng)當(dāng)成為進(jìn)行檢察權(quán)司法化改造的重點(diǎn)領(lǐng)域。對(duì)于這些權(quán)力的司法化應(yīng)當(dāng)做到兩個(gè)方面：一要在保持檢察一體的同時(shí),實(shí)現(xiàn)檢察官獨(dú)立；二是要通過權(quán)力程序的構(gòu)建實(shí)現(xiàn)檢察權(quán)運(yùn)行的正當(dāng)化。 第三章到第五章是本文的分論,分別就公訴權(quán)、檢察監(jiān)督權(quán)和檢察偵查權(quán)的定性和改造方向進(jìn)行論述。公訴權(quán)是獨(dú)立行使的權(quán)力,在起訴便宜主義下,不管決定提起公訴還是做出不起訴決定,都是對(duì)偵查終結(jié)的案件作出的裁斷,更符合司法權(quán)的特點(diǎn)。應(yīng)當(dāng)通過不起訴聽證制度和預(yù)審制度增強(qiáng)它的司法性。檢察監(jiān)督權(quán)行使中的適法裁量性因素,決定了檢察監(jiān)督權(quán)的司法屬性。這些監(jiān)督權(quán)應(yīng)當(dāng)通過監(jiān)督關(guān)系主體的利益分化和監(jiān)督程序的細(xì)化來實(shí)現(xiàn)法治功能。檢察偵查權(quán)實(shí)乃行政性權(quán)力,追求偵查效率的目的要求此項(xiàng)權(quán)力必須遵從上命下從的組織方式；同時(shí),為了防范異化,必須通過異體審查與全面審查對(duì)其進(jìn)行司法控制。
[Abstract]:At the end of 1990s, scholars began to reflect on procuratorial organs and procuratorial powers, and began to conduct extensive researches and debates on the nature and power of procuratorial powers.This introspection and controversy pervaded from the academic circles to the practical circles, from the procedural law specialty to the constitution, the jurisprudence specialty, lasted for more than ten years, formed the views of administrative power theory, judicial power theory, dual attribute theory and legal supervision power theory.By reflecting on the shortcomings of previous studies and the difficulties in the practice of procuratorial power, this paper thoroughly analyzes the problem of the nature of procuratorial power: the orientation of the nature of procuratorial power should focus on constructing the height of the fulcrum of the rule of law in our country, and position it as judicial power.To enhance the independence of procuratorial organs and the exercise of procuratorial power legitimate procedures.At the same time, this paper advocates that procuratorial power is a power bundle including public prosecution power, trial supervision power, procuratorial investigation power and so on, and the nature of this power bundle is not simple and pure.Among them, the power of public prosecution and the power of judicial supervision are obviously judicial, while the power of procuratorial self-investigation is obviously of the nature of administration.It is the premise to optimize the construction of procuratorial power to recognize the attributes of these subitems and make an accurate distinction.The judicial power in procuratorial power should be strengthened and the procedural reform should be strengthened, and the administrative power in procuratorial power should be examined and regulated according to the basic law of power restriction.The full text consists of about 60000 words, which is divided into five chapters:Chapter one: the nature of procuratorial power: multi-dimensional perspective and complex understanding.This chapter clearly distinguishes the difference and relation between judicial power and administrative power from the angle of political science, analyzes the qualitative problem of procuratorial power from the proper and realistic cognitive path, and thinks that procuratorial power has the attribute of judicature and administration.Considering the construction of the fulcrum of the rule of law in our country, we advocate that procuratorial power should be shaped as judicial power to enhance its independence and procedural legitimacy.The second chapter discusses the judicial reform of procuratorial power in China.This chapter investigates the attributes of the procuratorial power and concludes that the prosecutorial power and the judicial supervision power, as an important component of the judicial power, should become the key areas for the judicial reform of the procuratorial power.There are two aspects to the judicature of these powers: one is to realize the procurator's independence while maintaining the procuratorial integrity; the other is to realize the legitimacy of the procuratorial power operation through the construction of the power procedure.The third chapter to the fifth chapter is the division of this paper, respectively on the right of public prosecution, procuratorial supervision and prosecutorial investigation power of the qualitative and reform direction.The right of public prosecution is an independent exercise of power. Under the doctrine of inexpensive prosecution, whether the decision to prosecute or the decision not to prosecute, is the conclusion of the case of the end of investigation, more in line with the characteristics of judicial power.Its judicial character should be enhanced by the non-prosecution hearing system and the pre-hearing system.The judicial attribute of procuratorial supervision power is determined by the discretion of law in the exercise of procuratorial supervision power.These supervisory powers should realize the function of ruling by law by dividing the interests of the subject of supervision relationship and refining the supervision procedure.The power of procuratorial investigation is actually an administrative power, and the purpose of pursuing the efficiency of investigation requires that the power must follow the way of organization under the order of the superior; at the same time, in order to prevent alienation, judicial control must be carried out through heterogeneity examination and comprehensive examination.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D926.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 彭勃;檢察權(quán)的性質(zhì)與“檢警一體化”理論試析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年08期

2 郭云忠;;刑事訴訟謙抑論[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年01期

3 程春明,泮偉江;現(xiàn)代社會(huì)中的司法權(quán)(上)——由中國(guó)法律的實(shí)效性問題檢討司法權(quán)的性質(zhì)[J];中國(guó)司法;2005年09期

4 馬明生;王欽杰;;論民事行政檢察制度的完善[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年04期

5 吳建雄;;檢察業(yè)務(wù)考評(píng)制度的反思與重構(gòu)——以檢察官客觀公正義務(wù)為視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年06期

6 龍宗智;論檢察權(quán)的性質(zhì)與檢察機(jī)關(guān)的改革[J];法學(xué);1999年10期

7 謝鵬程;論檢察權(quán)的性質(zhì)[J];法學(xué);2000年02期

8 張澤濤;“議行合一”對(duì)司法權(quán)的負(fù)面影響[J];法學(xué);2003年10期

9 王強(qiáng);趙罡;;檢察一體化與檢察權(quán)獨(dú)立行使的關(guān)系[J];法學(xué);2007年07期

10 楊小明;;邏輯的悖論——孟德斯鳩奪權(quán)之前的分權(quán)政體建構(gòu)原因探析[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年04期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 郝銀鐘;[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1757833