本文選題：司法責(zé)任 + 責(zé)任豁免��； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2015年9月21日,最高人民法院出臺《最高人民法院關(guān)于完善人民法院司法責(zé)任制的若干意見》(以下簡稱"《意見》"),提出建立以違法審判責(zé)任為核心的司法責(zé)任制,明確法官為其履職行為承擔(dān)責(zé)任,并對案件質(zhì)量終身負(fù)責(zé)。追溯我國法官問責(zé)制度的發(fā)展歷史,從古代的"出入人罪"到近代的"錯案責(zé)任"、"違法審判責(zé)任",再發(fā)展至目前的"司法責(zé)任制",我國的法官問責(zé)制度也在不斷探索和完善。最初在打擊冤假錯案的浪潮下所產(chǎn)生的錯案責(zé)任追究制在后期實踐中也逐漸顯現(xiàn)諸多弊端,如干涉司法獨(dú)立、打擊法官工作積極性等問題。雖然各地法院也針對上述問題進(jìn)行積極探索,并制定相關(guān)細(xì)則,但由于缺乏統(tǒng)一的規(guī)范,使得法官問責(zé)制度紛繁雜亂,實際操作亂象紛呈。《意見》的出臺從全國層面上確立了統(tǒng)一的問責(zé)制度,并將法官責(zé)任定位為違法審判責(zé)任�！兑庖姟分泻w審判權(quán)力運(yùn)行機(jī)制、司法人員職責(zé)與權(quán)限、審判責(zé)任的認(rèn)定與追究,以及法官的履職保障等內(nèi)容,較為詳細(xì)地闡述了審判責(zé)任的基礎(chǔ)、范圍、規(guī)則、程序、保障等問題。《意見》指出應(yīng)堅持責(zé)任與保障相結(jié)合的原則,因此,責(zé)任追究和責(zé)任豁免均是司法責(zé)任的應(yīng)有之義。其中,違法審判責(zé)任追究制度作為審判行為的監(jiān)督機(jī)制,若要在司法獨(dú)立的基礎(chǔ)上實現(xiàn)對審判行為的有效約束,必然要確立一個明確的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為評價依據(jù)。這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的確立應(yīng)堅持"權(quán)責(zé)明確、權(quán)責(zé)一致"的原則,依據(jù)法官的職權(quán)界定相應(yīng)的責(zé)任,從而明確合理的追責(zé)范圍,建立科學(xué)的追責(zé)基準(zhǔn)。根據(jù)《意見》所列舉的追責(zé)是由,可按照外在表現(xiàn)形式分為"錯誤裁判"與"違法行為"兩種情形,并堅持主客觀相結(jié)合的原則,依據(jù)情節(jié)輕重確定不同的追責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外,還應(yīng)建立與責(zé)任追究制度相輔的責(zé)任豁免制度。從宏觀上確定責(zé)任豁免制度,從微觀上加強(qiáng)制度建設(shè)�？v觀國外及國際做法,法官的責(zé)任豁免都是相對的,因此我國法官責(zé)任的豁免也應(yīng)是特定、有限制的。因此,違法審判追究機(jī)制與責(zé)任豁免機(jī)制相互結(jié)合,共同構(gòu)成有效、合理的法官問責(zé)機(jī)制,進(jìn)而實現(xiàn)司法公正與司法獨(dú)立的制衡。
[Abstract]:On September 21, 2015, the Supreme people's Court issued the opinions of the Supreme people's Court on improving the Judicial responsibility system of the people's Courts (hereinafter referred to as "opinions"), and proposed to establish a judicial responsibility system with the responsibility of illegal trials as the core. Make it clear that the judge is responsible for his or her duties and is responsible for the quality of the case for life. Tracing back to the development history of our country's judges' accountability system, from the ancient "crime of breaking into the law" to the modern "wrong case responsibility", "illegal trial responsibility", and then to the current "judicial responsibility system", the system of our country's judge accountability system is also constantly exploring and perfecting. In the later stage of practice, the system of accountability for wrongdoings arising from the wave of cracking down on unjust and false cases has gradually revealed many drawbacks, such as interfering with the independence of the judiciary, attacking the enthusiasm of the judges in their work, and so on. Although local courts have also actively explored the above issues and worked out relevant rules, the lack of uniform norms has made the system of judges' accountability complicated and messy. The introduction of "opinions" has established a unified system of accountability at the national level, and has defined the responsibility of judges as the responsibility of illegal trials. It covers the operation mechanism of judicial power, the duties and powers of judicial personnel, The determination and investigation of the trial responsibility, as well as the guarantee of the judges' performance of their duties and so on, are expounded in detail, including the basis, scope, rules, procedures, safeguards, etc. The opinion points out that the principle of combining responsibility with security should be adhered to. Therefore, accountability and immunity are the proper meaning of judicial responsibility. In order to realize the effective restriction of judicial behavior on the basis of judicial independence, a clear standard must be established as the basis of evaluation. The establishment of this standard should adhere to the principle of "clear power and responsibility, consistent with power and responsibility", define the corresponding responsibility according to the judge's authority, so as to make clear the reasonable scope of responsibility, and establish a scientific standard of pursuing responsibility. According to the reason listed in opinion, it can be divided into two situations according to the external manifestation: "wrong judgment" and "illegal act", and adhere to the principle of combination of subjective and objective, and determine different standards of responsibility according to the seriousness of the circumstances. In addition, it is necessary to establish a system of exemption from liability, which is supplemented by the system of accountability. The system of liability exemption should be determined macroscopically and the construction of system should be strengthened from the micro point of view. Throughout the foreign and international practice, the immunity of judges is relative, so the immunity of our judges should be specific and limited. Therefore, the mechanism of investigating illegal trial and the mechanism of exemption of responsibility combine each other to form an effective and reasonable mechanism for the accountability of judges, and then to realize the balance between judicial justice and judicial independence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D926.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉義昆;;“跛腿”的官員問責(zé)制度[J];觀察與思考;2005年24期

2 宋惠芳;;考究官員問責(zé)制度:誤區(qū)與對策[J];中共山西省委黨校學(xué)報;2006年01期

3 佚名;;引咎辭職:古代與今日的問責(zé)制度[J];政府法制;2008年21期

4 ;引咎辭職:古代與今日的問責(zé)制度[J];決策探索(上半月);2008年10期

5 汪輝勇;;論公務(wù)員責(zé)任意識的養(yǎng)成[J];東莞理工學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年04期

6 趙培章;;昆明市問責(zé)制度建設(shè)探微[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2011年21期

7 林U，

本文編號：1857934