【摘要】：跨區(qū)域集中管轄是指人民法院將某一區(qū)域的一審行政訴訟案件交由一個或幾個特定的法院管轄的制度。目前跨區(qū)域集中管轄的改革試點在我國各地相繼鋪開。在現(xiàn)階段司法體制轉(zhuǎn)型的進(jìn)程中,選擇改革觸動面效小的跨區(qū)域集中管轄模式具有相對明顯的優(yōu)勢。實踐表明,跨區(qū)域集中管轄對于促進(jìn)司法公正、破除地方干預(yù)、維護(hù)司法的統(tǒng)一性、優(yōu)化資源配置具有極其重要的意義。但是,因其制度上的不穩(wěn)定性以及多方面的原因,施行效果并沒有完全達(dá)到人們的預(yù)期�？鐓^(qū)域集中管轄是一種過渡性、開放度較高的管轄模式,作為行政訴訟管轄制度改革的探路燈,對于提高司法的公信力具有積極的意義,未來一段時間內(nèi)仍將繼續(xù)存在。因此,完善跨區(qū)域集中管轄制度的施行路徑勢在必行。本文將跨區(qū)域集中管轄的相關(guān)概念進(jìn)行對比分析,并且從跨區(qū)域集中管轄實施以來取得的成效、意義等方面深入剖析了跨區(qū)域集中管轄方式對于改革我國現(xiàn)行行政訴訟體制的有效性。通過較為全面地總結(jié)新《行政訴訟法》頒布后,我國各地區(qū)推行跨區(qū)域集中管轄試點改革的不同模式經(jīng)驗,發(fā)現(xiàn)跨區(qū)域集中管轄制度在具體運(yùn)作中存在著調(diào)查取證難、執(zhí)行難、集中管轄法院的選取缺乏統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、無法從根本上擺脫行政干預(yù)等突出問題。為完善跨區(qū)域集中管轄制度,提升司法的公正性與公信力,應(yīng)當(dāng)在科學(xué)、合理的內(nèi)在要求下,通過完善跨區(qū)域管轄案件的調(diào)查取證和執(zhí)行制度、建立統(tǒng)一的確定跨區(qū)域集中管轄法院的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、制定跨區(qū)域集中管轄的審理程序和便民措施、充分賦予原告選擇管轄權(quán)、健全集中管轄法院依法獨立行使行政審判權(quán)的保障機(jī)制等手段,完善現(xiàn)有的跨區(qū)域集中管轄制度,以期解決我國行政訴訟體制中的現(xiàn)實問題,弱化行政訴訟體制中固有缺陷的影響,早日實現(xiàn)司法公正的美好愿景。
[Abstract]:Cross-regional centralized jurisdiction refers to the system in which the people's court places the administrative litigation case of first instance in a certain area under the jurisdiction of one or more specific courts. At present, cross-regional centralized jurisdiction reform pilot has been spread out in various parts of our country. In the process of judicial system transformation at present, the choice of cross-regional centralized jurisdiction mode with little touching effect has relatively obvious advantages. The practice shows that cross-regional centralized jurisdiction is of great significance to promote judicial justice, break local intervention, maintain judicial unity and optimize the allocation of resources. However, due to the instability of its system and many reasons, the effect of implementation has not fully met people's expectations. Cross-regional centralized jurisdiction is a transitional and open jurisdiction mode. As a probe into the reform of administrative litigation jurisdiction system, it is of positive significance to improve the credibility of the judiciary, and will continue to exist in the future. Therefore, it is imperative to improve the implementation path of cross-regional centralized jurisdiction system. In this paper, the related concepts of cross-regional centralized jurisdiction are compared and analyzed, and the results achieved since the implementation of cross-regional centralized jurisdiction, This paper analyzes the effectiveness of cross-regional centralized jurisdiction in reforming the current administrative litigation system in China. After the promulgation of the new Administrative procedure Law, it is found that it is difficult to investigate and obtain evidence in the concrete operation of the cross-regional centralized jurisdiction system by summing up the experiences of different models and experiences of carrying out the pilot reform of cross-regional centralized jurisdiction in various regions of our country. The selection of centralized courts lacks unified standards and can not fundamentally get rid of outstanding problems such as administrative intervention. In order to perfect the system of centralized jurisdiction across regions and enhance the fairness and credibility of justice, we should perfect the system of investigation, evidence collection and execution of cases under cross-regional jurisdiction under the inherent requirements of science and reasonableness. To establish a unified standard for determining cross-regional centralized jurisdiction courts, to formulate trial procedures and measures for the convenience of cross-regional centralized jurisdiction, and to give full jurisdiction to plaintiffs to choose jurisdiction, We will improve the safeguard mechanism for centralized courts to exercise administrative jurisdiction independently in accordance with the law, and improve the existing cross-regional centralized jurisdiction system in order to solve the practical problems in the administrative litigation system of our country. Weaken the influence of inherent defects in administrative litigation system, and realize the good vision of judicial justice as soon as possible.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：海南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張曙;;刑事訴訟集中管轄:一個反思性評論[J];政法論壇;2014年05期

2 劉德吉;鄧永杰;;關(guān)于進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)部分知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件集中管轄的思考[J];科技與法律;2006年01期

3 張鋒;;關(guān)于進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)部分知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件集中管轄的思考[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年05期

4 李杰;張傳毅;;行政案件集中管轄模式初探:理論定位與實踐選擇[J];法律適用;2014年05期

5 張薇;;淺淡我國涉外民商事案件集中管轄的規(guī)定[J];哈爾濱職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年05期

6 王春業(yè);;論行政訴訟案件的相對集中管轄[J];山東科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2013年06期

7 郭修江;;行政訴訟集中管轄問題研究——《關(guān)于開展行政案件相對集中管轄試點工作的通知》的理解與實踐[J];法律適用;2014年05期

8 杜濤;;確立行政訴訟“集中管轄”模式之思考[J];神州;2013年12期

9 李錦濱;;相對集中管轄:解決現(xiàn)行行政管轄缺陷的一劑良方——基于《行政訴訟法修正案(草案)》第十六條第二款的分析[J];知識經(jīng)濟(jì);2014年07期

10 葉贊平;劉家?guī)?;行政訴訟集中管轄制度的實證研究[J];浙江大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2011年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 卞俏麗;行政訴訟集中管轄的改革現(xiàn)狀與路徑探尋[D];東南大學(xué);2015年

2 初婷婷;行政訴訟相對集中管轄具體制度探析[D];延邊大學(xué);2016年

3 劉逸;行政案件集中管轄制度改革研究[D];廣西民族大學(xué);2016年

4 楊斌;行政訴訟集中管轄制度研究[D];深圳大學(xué);2017年

5 李曼;行政訴訟跨區(qū)域集中管轄研究[D];海南大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號：2492456