【摘要】：司法公開是憲法和法律確認(rèn)的一項(xiàng)基本原則,是社會(huì)公眾知曉、監(jiān)督司法的重要途徑,只有公開、透明才能揭開司法神秘的面紗,才能確保司法公正和公信。司法公開作為司法改革的重中之重,近年來進(jìn)展地如火如荼,從三大平臺(tái)建設(shè)的裁判文書公開平臺(tái)建設(shè)、執(zhí)行信息公開平臺(tái)建設(shè)、審判流程公開平臺(tái)建設(shè)到六大公開的立案公開、文書公開、庭審公開、聽證公開、審務(wù)公開、執(zhí)行公開,我國(guó)司法公開的內(nèi)容及范圍在不斷擴(kuò)大。就目前已經(jīng)使用的公開手段來看,裁判文書上網(wǎng)公開制度、直播錄播庭審制度、新聞媒體旁聽制度等等一系列制度措施已經(jīng)取得了良好的成績(jī),可以說我國(guó)司法公開工作正在穩(wěn)步、有序地進(jìn)行。盡管如此,就目前已經(jīng)公開的內(nèi)容來看,還有一部分應(yīng)納入司法公開范圍的事項(xiàng)未被公開。而為人們所詬病,被稱為"保護(hù)傘"的"副卷"便是這樣的存在。就現(xiàn)有規(guī)定來看,法院卷宗分為正卷和副卷兩部分,正卷允許當(dāng)事人進(jìn)行查閱并且對(duì)外公開,副卷除特殊情況外不允許任何單位及個(gè)人進(jìn)行查閱且不對(duì)外公開。副卷的不公開屬性使得副卷成為無法對(duì)外公開的各種材料的"收容地"。在司法實(shí)踐中,副卷的不公開性衍生出了一系列的問題,它在一定程度上破壞了司法的公正性,因此副卷的存廢或者改革問題亟待討論。誠(chéng)然,副卷中一些材料的存在反映了外來力量對(duì)司法權(quán)獨(dú)立行使的干預(yù),但副卷卷宗由若干文書材料組成,并非其中所有的內(nèi)容都扮演著這樣的角色,如果將副卷中所有材料一應(yīng)公開,那么司法的權(quán)威性或?qū)⑹艿讲缓侠淼奶翎?且無限度司法公開會(huì)對(duì)法院造成巨大壓力,引發(fā)上訪、纏訴,不符合我國(guó)目前的司法環(huán)境。因此,在不破壞司法權(quán)威且進(jìn)一步提升司法公信的基礎(chǔ)上,應(yīng)對(duì)副卷內(nèi)容有條件的進(jìn)行合理化公開。司法公開這一論題無論對(duì)于理論學(xué)術(shù)界亦或是司法實(shí)務(wù)界來說都并不陌生,關(guān)于司法公開的文章也比比皆是。但是在司法公開視角下對(duì)副卷公開問題進(jìn)行討論的文章卻寥寥無幾。就現(xiàn)有的文獻(xiàn)來看,除了一些報(bào)道和文章外,幾乎沒有人專門對(duì)正副卷制度進(jìn)行研究,僅有的一些文章也多是對(duì)副卷的不公開性進(jìn)行詬病,但也并未對(duì)其進(jìn)行詳細(xì)闡述分析,而且正副卷制度作為中國(guó)特色,沒有可供參考的國(guó)外相關(guān)制度。此外,除一些概括性規(guī)定外,關(guān)于正副卷的立法基本空白。筆者意圖通過對(duì)我國(guó)法院正副卷內(nèi)容的討論,為副卷公開的改革提供一定的參考意見,也為司法公開范圍的擴(kuò)大提供方向。本文通過理論結(jié)合實(shí)踐,以抽樣調(diào)研的方式,對(duì)法院各類卷宗進(jìn)行抽樣分析、歸納總結(jié),依據(jù)現(xiàn)有規(guī)定及實(shí)際情況明確副卷中具體包括的內(nèi)容并通過討論副卷中各類訴訟文書是否應(yīng)當(dāng)公開,最終對(duì)我國(guó)法院副卷的公開方式提出構(gòu)想。
[Abstract]:Judicial openness is a basic principle confirmed by constitution and law. It is an important way for the public to know and supervise the administration of justice. Only by being open and transparent can the mysterious veil of judicature be opened and judicial justice and public trust be ensured. Judicial openness, as the most important part of judicial reform, has made great progress in recent years, from the construction of the open platform of three platforms to the construction of open platform for judicial documents, and the construction of public platform for implementation of information. The open platform of trial process has been built to six open cases, open documents, open trial, open hearing, open trial, open execution, and the content and scope of judicial openness in our country is expanding. With regard to the open means that have been used at present, a series of system measures, such as the open system of online access to adjudicative documents, the system of live recording and broadcasting of court hearings, the system of listening to the news media, and so on, have already achieved good results. It can be said that China's judicial publicity work is steadily, orderly. Nevertheless, there are still some matters that should be included in the scope of judicial disclosure, in terms of what has been made public so far. The paraphrase, known as the umbrella, is such a being. As far as the existing regulations are concerned, the court file is divided into two parts: the positive volume allows the parties to consult and open to the public, and the subsidiary volume does not allow any unit or individual to consult and not open to the public except for special circumstances. The undisclosed nature of the secondary volume makes it a "shelter" for all kinds of materials that cannot be made public. In judicial practice, there are a series of problems arising from the non-public nature of the subsidiary volume, which to a certain extent destroys the justice of the judiciary, so the issue of the retention or the reform of the subsidiary volume needs to be discussed urgently. It is true that the existence of some of the materials in the sub-volume reflects the interference of external forces in the independent exercise of judicial power, but the sub-volume consists of a number of clerical materials, not all of which play such a role. If all the materials in the subsidiary volume should be made public, then the judicial authority may be subjected to unreasonable provocation, and the unlimited judicial publicity will cause great pressure on the court and cause petition and entanglement, which does not accord with the current judicial environment of our country. Therefore, on the basis of not destroying the judicial authority and further enhancing the judicial public trust, the contents of the secondary volume should be rationalized and made public. The topic of judicial openness is no stranger to the academic circle or the judicial practice circle, and the articles on judicial openness are everywhere. But from the perspective of judicial openness, there are few articles to discuss the issue of the publication of secondary volumes. As far as the existing literature is concerned, in addition to some reports and articles, almost no one has specifically studied the system of primary and secondary volumes. Most of the only articles have been criticized for their non-openness, but they have not been elaborated and analyzed in detail. Moreover, as Chinese characteristics, there is no relevant foreign system for reference. In addition, in addition to some general provisions, the legislation on the basic blank. The author intends to provide some reference opinions for the reform of the opening of the secondary volume through the discussion of the contents of the court and vice-volume of our country, and also to provide the direction for the expansion of the scope of judicial publicity. In this paper, through the combination of theory and practice, with the way of sampling and investigation, we analyze and summarize all kinds of court files. According to the existing regulations and the actual situation, this paper clarifies the contents of the subsidiary volume and discusses whether all kinds of litigation documents in the subsidiary volume should be made public, and finally puts forward some ideas on the way of opening the subsidiary volume of the court in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.22

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉敏;論司法公開的擴(kuò)張與限制[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2001年05期

2 王天華;司法公開與控制的立法思考[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2003年03期

3 蔣惠嶺;;掃除司法公開的十大障礙[J];中國(guó)審判;2010年05期

4 張青;;司法公開應(yīng)成為法院工作常態(tài)[J];法制資訊;2010年11期

5 蔣安杰;王海文;唐連榮;;司法公開:一把開啟群眾信任的鑰匙——上海一中院“司法公開20條意見”研討會(huì)側(cè)記[J];法制資訊;2010年11期

6 顧穎;陳永良;;司法公開的生動(dòng)實(shí)踐 上海一中院大力推進(jìn)司法公開打造陽光法院側(cè)記[J];中國(guó)審判;2011年04期

7 王慶廷;;司法公開要“公而有度,開而有序”[J];人民司法;2011年21期

8 張立勇;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的司法公開[J];中國(guó)黨政干部論壇;2012年07期

9 高亞飛;;微博時(shí)代的司法公開探析[J];南京工程學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年02期

10 蔣惠嶺;;以改革創(chuàng)新精神推進(jìn)司法公開[J];中國(guó)黨政干部論壇;2012年08期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 鮑慧民;陳麗;顧飛;;“傳者中心”向“受眾中心”轉(zhuǎn)變——司法公開信息傳播的主導(dǎo)模式和路徑選擇[A];全國(guó)法院第25屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募汗痉ㄅc行政法實(shí)施問題研究（上冊(cè)）[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 北京市第一中級(jí)人民法院課題組;司法公開 還有多少工作要做[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

2 記者 王眾鴻;甘州法院榮獲司法公開示范法院[N];甘肅法制報(bào);2010年

3 本報(bào)特約評(píng)論員;加強(qiáng)司法公開 推進(jìn)陽光司法[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

4 傅曉暉　謝志華;臨川法院首次入選全國(guó)百個(gè)“司法公開示范法院”[N];撫州日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

5 唐光新;凱里法院入選全國(guó)百個(gè)“司法公開示范法院”[N];法制生活報(bào);2010年

6 北京鐵路運(yùn)輸中級(jí)法院 陳榮;司法公開的三重境界[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

7 本報(bào)評(píng)論員;將司法公開進(jìn)行到底[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

8 記者 沈剛　通訊員 敖穎婕;上海一中院廣納司法公開良策[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

9 張偉　劉金英;白山中法全面推進(jìn)司法公開[N];北方法制報(bào);2011年

10 張偉　記者 劉金英;市法院全面推進(jìn)司法公開[N];長(zhǎng)白山日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 常君;司法公開理論及實(shí)證研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2012年

2 張碧茵;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代背景下的司法公開制度研究[D];南京大學(xué);2013年

3 李佩;我國(guó)當(dāng)前司法公開的制度與實(shí)踐[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2013年

4 韓珊珊;論司法公開的價(jià)值[D];中共中央黨校;2014年

5 韓昊;司法公開問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

6 邵藝;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的司法公開研究[D];淮北師范大學(xué);2015年

7 詹文君;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代我國(guó)司法公開的維度與例外[D];廣西民族大學(xué);2015年

8 張媛聆;裁判文書公開制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2015年

9 張子正;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代我國(guó)司法公開的實(shí)踐與完善[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

10 李艷芳;微博環(huán)境下的司法公開問題研究[D];首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：2199704