本文關(guān)鍵詞： 司法人員 任職回避 一方退出 司法公正　出處：《上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：自2014年開(kāi)始,上海作為司法體制改革試點(diǎn),先行展開(kāi)司法改革。2015年,隨著司法體制改革在上海的全面推行,上海推出了所謂的"最嚴(yán)回避令"即有關(guān)上海司法人員任職回避的《上海法官、檢察官?gòu)膰?yán)管理六條規(guī)定》,其內(nèi)容要求法官、檢察官配偶在本市從事律師、司法審計(jì)、司法拍賣(mài)職業(yè)的,各級(jí)法院、檢察院領(lǐng)導(dǎo)班子成員配偶、子女在本市從事前述職業(yè)的,應(yīng)當(dāng)實(shí)行一方退出。該制度有別于普通的公務(wù)員任職回避制度,也有別于現(xiàn)有的司法回避制度。這一規(guī)定一經(jīng)推出,就受到了社會(huì)各界的廣泛關(guān)注,法學(xué)理論界和司法實(shí)務(wù)屆都不斷發(fā)聲,對(duì)該規(guī)定有所評(píng)價(jià)。"最嚴(yán)回避令"出臺(tái)的初衷是積極的,也自然有其必要性,司法人員與律師的利益沖突,司法人員的腐敗現(xiàn)象,司法公信力的缺失以及現(xiàn)有司法回避制度的缺陷,都呼喚它的出臺(tái)。但同時(shí)它遭受了一些質(zhì)疑,在法理上存在爭(zhēng)議,在實(shí)踐中存在問(wèn)題。在法理上,它被認(rèn)為缺乏正當(dāng)性和合理性。首先,它沒(méi)有遵守法律位階原則,與《法官法》、《檢察官法》等基本法律的相關(guān)規(guī)定存在沖突;其次,它的出臺(tái)與保障公民職業(yè)選擇權(quán)等價(jià)值也有所沖突,侵犯了司法人員及其家屬的職業(yè)選擇權(quán),間接違反了《勞動(dòng)法》的原則性規(guī)定;再次,它導(dǎo)致了司法人員與其配偶離婚的現(xiàn)象,間接侵犯了公民婚姻自由權(quán);最后,在回避對(duì)象范圍的問(wèn)題上也有待細(xì)化,從職業(yè)范圍上來(lái)說(shuō),沒(méi)有將基層法律服務(wù)工作者列入其中,從回避情形上來(lái)說(shuō),僅僅要求配偶、子女回避,沒(méi)有將父母、同胞兄弟姊妹、媳婦、女婿這些身份關(guān)系列入其中。在實(shí)踐中,也面臨了司法人才資源流失、失業(yè)問(wèn)題的產(chǎn)生以及假離婚、隱名代理現(xiàn)象的產(chǎn)生等一系列社會(huì)問(wèn)題。本文通過(guò)對(duì)該制度的研究,針對(duì)上述爭(zhēng)議與問(wèn)題,一一作出回應(yīng)與評(píng)析,得出了上海市司法人員任職回避制度應(yīng)當(dāng)推行的結(jié)論。它的實(shí)行有利于推進(jìn)司法體制改革進(jìn)程,有利于提高司法公信力,有利于保障司法公正,防止司法腐敗。盡管如此,出臺(tái)后的爭(zhēng)議與實(shí)施中的問(wèn)題依然不容忽視,應(yīng)通過(guò)制定法律確立該制度,通過(guò)細(xì)化回避情形完善該制度,通過(guò)建立長(zhǎng)效跟蹤機(jī)制落實(shí)該制度。同時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)完善司法監(jiān)督機(jī)制以及加強(qiáng)司法人員道德建設(shè)等相關(guān)措施,配合司法人員任職回避制度落實(shí),實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正的最終目標(biāo)。
[Abstract]:Since 2014, as a pilot of judicial system reform, Shanghai has carried out judicial reform first. In 2015, with the full implementation of judicial system reform in Shanghai, Shanghai has introduced the so-called "strictest withdrawal order," that is, "Shanghai judges, six provisions on the strict administration of procurators" concerning the disqualification of judicial personnel in Shanghai. Its contents require judges, public procurators' spouses to engage in lawyers and judicial audits in this city. Where a judicial auction profession is engaged in, the spouses and children of members of the leading bodies of the courts and procuratorates at all levels who are engaged in the aforementioned occupations in this municipality shall withdraw from the employment of one party. This system is different from the system of disqualification of public servants from holding office, It is also different from the existing judicial challenge system. Once this provision is introduced, it has received extensive attention from all walks of life in the society, and the legal theorists and judicial practice have been constantly speaking out. The original intention of "the strictest avoidance order" was positive, and naturally there was its necessity. Conflicts of interest between judicial personnel and lawyers, corruption among judicial personnel, The lack of judicial credibility and the defects of the existing judicial challenge system call for its introduction. But at the same time, it has been questioned, there are disputes in the legal theory, there are problems in practice. It is considered to be lacking in legitimacy and reasonableness. First, it does not abide by the principle of legal rank and conflicts with the relevant provisions of the basic laws, such as the Law on judges, the Law on Public prosecutors, etc. Its introduction also conflicts with the value of safeguarding citizens' professional right to choose, which infringes on the professional right of judicial personnel and their families, and indirectly violates the principled provisions of the Labor Law; thirdly, It leads to the divorce of judicial personnel from their spouses, and indirectly violates the civil right to freedom of marriage. Finally, the issue of avoiding the scope of the target needs to be refined. In terms of professional scope, there is no inclusion of grass-roots legal service workers. In the case of avoidance, only spouses and children are required to avoid, without including parents, siblings, wives, and son-in-law. In practice, they also face the loss of judicial talent resources. A series of social problems such as unemployment, false divorce, anonymous agency, etc. Through the study of this system, this paper makes a response and comments to the above disputes and problems. The conclusion is drawn that the system of judicial recusal in Shanghai should be carried out. Its implementation is conducive to promoting the reform of the judicial system, improving the credibility of the judiciary, safeguarding judicial justice and preventing judicial corruption. After the introduction of the dispute and the implementation of the problems still can not be ignored, we should make laws to establish the system, through the refinement of the avoidance situation to improve the system, At the same time, we should perfect the judicial supervision mechanism and strengthen the moral construction of judicial personnel, cooperate with the implementation of the system of judicial officers' withdrawal from office, and realize the ultimate goal of judicial justice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊正平,李志雄;司法人員職業(yè)化進(jìn)程的路徑選擇[J];南華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年04期

2 ;正義司法禮品網(wǎng)——司法人員專用表[J];人民檢察;2012年14期

3 王教生;司法人員職務(wù)犯罪中的“過(guò)于自信”心態(tài)[J];檢察風(fēng)云;1995年11期

4 張瑞生;淺談司法人員犯罪的原因[J];中央政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1997年03期

5 楊玲;試論司法人員的素質(zhì)構(gòu)成[J];重慶商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年02期

6 翁永新,陸正明;查處司法人員徇私舞弊類犯罪中的難點(diǎn)及對(duì)策[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2000年02期

7 劉立新 ,趙大偉 ,王超峰;權(quán)杖為誰(shuí)而執(zhí)?——司法人員舞弊現(xiàn)象透視[J];黨風(fēng)通訊;2001年09期

8 譚愛(ài)娟;司法人員之情商研究[J];湖南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年02期

9 李瑛玲;;加強(qiáng)司法人員的道德建設(shè)[J];實(shí)踐;2002年07期

10 解玉敏;司法人員應(yīng)具備的職業(yè)心理素質(zhì)[J];河南司法警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 熊繼寧;;法制系統(tǒng)案件增長(zhǎng)及司法人員需求預(yù)測(cè)[A];發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略與系統(tǒng)工程——第五屆系統(tǒng)工程學(xué)會(huì)年會(huì)論文集[C];1986年

2 唐仕春;;清末民初司法人員與法政畢業(yè)生數(shù)目之比較[A];近代中國(guó)的社會(huì)保障與區(qū)域社會(huì)[C];2011年

3 梅傳莉;張學(xué)軍;;建議傷者被致傷后及時(shí)到司法鑒定部門(mén)進(jìn)行傷情鑒定[A];全國(guó)第六次法醫(yī)學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)論文摘要集[C];2000年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 連海平;司法人員應(yīng)與商人保持距離[N];廣州日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

2 記者 張先明;奚曉明會(huì)見(jiàn)臺(tái)灣司法人員研習(xí)所所長(zhǎng)[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

3 吳杭民;司法人員尤需一輩子的“緊箍咒”[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

4 記者 李白蕾;我省立案查辦司法人員職務(wù)犯罪277人[N];福州日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

5 華東政法大學(xué)國(guó)際金融法律學(xué)院 程金華;關(guān)注司法人員對(duì)司法改革措施的反應(yīng)[N];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2014年

6 記者 楊新順;檢察機(jī)關(guān)嚴(yán)查司法人員窩案串案[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

7 楊濤;沒(méi)有司法人員的人身安全就難有司法權(quán)威[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

8 王印格 李金寬;司法人員職務(wù)犯罪集中四種類型[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

9 周顯威;加大查辦司法人員職務(wù)犯罪案件的力度[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2004年

10 齊曉華;杜爾伯特司法人員深入基層調(diào)糾紛[N];黑龍江日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 吳學(xué)斌;犯罪構(gòu)成要件符合性判斷研究[D];清華大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 楊芳;運(yùn)輸毒品罪疑難問(wèn)題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

2 張盛嘉;上海市司法人員任職回避制度的問(wèn)題研究[D];上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院;2017年

3 郭曉清;論司法人員之獨(dú)立人格與司法制度的合理設(shè)計(jì)[D];蘇州大學(xué);2011年

4 張麗華;司法人員工作倦怠問(wèn)題及對(duì)策研究[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2013年

5 曾海;董必武舊司法人員思想改造理論研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1497754