發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-11 00:29

  本文選題：全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問(wèn)題的決定 + 操作性��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 隨著現(xiàn)代社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)和科學(xué)技術(shù)的進(jìn)步，涉及科技問(wèn)題的證據(jù)在訴訟中占有的比例越來(lái)越重，因此司法鑒定的作用越來(lái)越重要。但是由于我國(guó)司法鑒定制度規(guī)定的不完善，導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中，多頭鑒定，重復(fù)鑒定現(xiàn)象十分嚴(yán)重，這種狀況不符合我國(guó)的法治建設(shè)要求，同時(shí)也損害了當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益。為了更好的管理司法鑒定工作，第十屆全國(guó)人大第十四次會(huì)議通過(guò)了常委會(huì)《關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問(wèn)題的決定》(下稱(chēng)《決定》)。這對(duì)我國(guó)的司法鑒定的有效進(jìn)行提供了法律上的支持。但同時(shí)我們也要看到該決定不完善的地方，進(jìn)而思考如何改善。相較于其他論著的觀點(diǎn)，本文作者另選角度，從法律的操作性來(lái)探討《決定》的得失，然后思考如何改進(jìn)《決定》的可操作性，以最終達(dá)到立法者的初衷。 本文除了前言和結(jié)語(yǔ)外，共分為三個(gè)部分 在前言部分，作者主要論述了關(guān)于各國(guó)司法鑒定制度的起源發(fā)展以及我國(guó)司法鑒定制度的現(xiàn)狀，其中重點(diǎn)論述了我國(guó)司法鑒定制度所面臨的問(wèn)題，從而引出了司法鑒定制度改革的必要性和迫切性，即《決定》的出臺(tái)背景。 在第一部分中，作者論述的是《決定》的可操作性。在探討《決定》可操作性之前，作者首先解釋了操作性的概念、與原則性的關(guān)系以及可操作性與不可操作性的區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，在此基礎(chǔ)上，作者開(kāi)始著重論述《決定》的可操作性，對(duì)于這個(gè)問(wèn)題，作者并沒(méi)有逐條討論，而是選取一些具有代表性的，具有深遠(yuǎn)意義的條文的可操作性進(jìn)行分析，如《決定》明確了司法鑒定的概念和范圍，確立了司法行政部門(mén)對(duì)司法鑒定的統(tǒng)一管理，偵查機(jī)關(guān)的鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)只對(duì)內(nèi)服務(wù)，審判機(jī)關(guān)和司法行政部門(mén)不得設(shè)立司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)等內(nèi)容。 在第二部分，作者論述的《決定》的不可操作性。在探討《決定》不可操作性的問(wèn)題上，作者主要分為五小部分進(jìn)行，首先是條文內(nèi)容上的不可操作性，對(duì)于這一部分的內(nèi)容，作者不僅前在第一部分中沒(méi)有提到的部分條文進(jìn)行了批判，同時(shí)還對(duì)此前認(rèn)可操作性的條文進(jìn)行了部分的批判，，在肯定其可操作性的同時(shí)，又提出了其具有部分的不可操作性，符合馬克思主義的辯證認(rèn)識(shí)論；第二是法律條文上的遺漏，對(duì)此，作者認(rèn)為《決定》對(duì)部分重要內(nèi)容未予以規(guī)定，由此造成實(shí)踐中無(wú)所適從；第三是《決定》與同位法的沖突，主要是介紹《決定》與《行政許可法》的沖突，從而使《決定》在實(shí)踐中無(wú)法操作；第四是《決定》在實(shí)施過(guò)程中缺乏必要的配套措施的支持，使其無(wú)法正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)；最后，作者陳述了《決定》實(shí)際實(shí)施過(guò)程中出現(xiàn)的各種問(wèn)題，用大量的現(xiàn)實(shí)材料，對(duì)《決定》的不可操作性作了自認(rèn)為比較深刻的總結(jié)。 第三部分，作者論述的是關(guān)于完善《決定》可操作性的建議，這也是本文的最后落腳點(diǎn)。首先，作者探討了《決定》產(chǎn)生不可操作性的原因，主要包括以下兩點(diǎn)：第一是關(guān)于立法方面的原因，我國(guó)制訂的法律大部分都是原則性強(qiáng)而可操作性差，《決定》亦是如此，作者在此系統(tǒng)的探討了立法方面的原因，包括立法的過(guò)于超前、脫離中國(guó)實(shí)際；借鑒外來(lái)經(jīng)驗(yàn)與符合中國(guó)國(guó)情的關(guān)系未把握好；立法之前未多做調(diào)查研究以及缺乏整體規(guī)劃思想等諸方面的原因；第二是關(guān)于《決定》的法律地位方面的問(wèn)題，由于《決定》法律地位的不夠，導(dǎo)致其與同位法沖突時(shí)無(wú)法選擇的沖突；由此引出完善《決定》可操作性的建議，一是修改《決定》中的部分內(nèi)容，二是制訂《決定》的配套措施，三是解決與其它法律的沖突。 司法鑒定制度的完善僅僅依靠《決定》的出臺(tái)和實(shí)施是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的，所以我們要以審慎的眼光看待《決定》的實(shí)施，思考如何彌補(bǔ)《決定》中的不足，以期在以后的立法和司法中予以完善，以更好的發(fā)揮司法鑒定的作用，保證訴訟效率和司法正義。
[Abstract]:With the progress of modern social economy and science and technology, the proportion of evidence involved in science and technology is becoming more and more serious in litigation. Therefore, the role of judicial identification is becoming more and more important. However, due to the imperfection of the judicial identification system in our country, it leads to the judicial practice, the phenomenon of repeated identification is very serious, this situation is not consistent. In order to better manage the judicial expertise, the fourteenth meeting of the Tenth NPC passed the decision of the Standing Committee on the management of judicial expertise (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"). This provides legal support for the effective conduct of our country's legal appraisal of the law. But at the same time, we should also see that the decision is not perfect, and then think about how to improve it. Compared with the views of other works, the author chooses the angle of the author to discuss the gains and losses of the "decision" from the operational nature of the law, and then thinks how to improve the operability of the "decision >", in order to finally reach the original intention of the legislator.
Besides preface and epilogue, this article is divided into three parts.
In the preface, the author mainly discusses the origin and development of the judicial identification system in various countries and the present situation of the system of judicial authentication in our country, which focuses on the problems faced by the system of judicial authentication in our country, which leads to the necessity and urgency of the reform of the judicial identification system, that is, the background of the introduction of the "decision".
In the first part, the author deals with the maneuverability of < Decision >. Before discussing the operability of < Decision >, the author first explained the concept of operability, the relationship with the principle and the distinction between the operability and the operability. On this basis, the author began to focus on the maneuverability of the < decision >, for this question, the author Instead of discussing one by one, it selects the operability of some representative and far-reaching provisions, such as "the decision > defines the concept and scope of judicial expertise, and establishes the unified management of judicial authentication by the administrative department of the judiciary, and the identification agencies of the investigative organs are only to the internal services, the judicial organs and the judicial administrative departments." No judicial authentication institutions shall be set up.
In the second part, the author discusses the non operable nature of the "decision >". In the discussion of the issue of "decision >", the author mainly divides into five parts. First, it is not operable in the contents of the articles. For the content of this part, the author not only criticizes some of the provisions that are not mentioned in the first part, but also is also correct. Prior to the approval of the operational provisions of the part of the criticism, in affirming its operability, and at the same time, it has put forward some of its non operable, consistent with the dialectical epistemology of Marx doctrine; second is the omission of the legal provisions, the author thinks that the "decision >" on the important content of the Department is not stipulated, thus resulting in no practice. The third is the conflict between the "decision >" and the same place law, which mainly introduces the conflict between the "decision >" and the administrative licensing law, thus making the < Decision > inoperable in practice; the fourth is the lack of necessary supporting measures in the process of implementation, so that it can not operate normally; finally, the author states the "decision >" in the actual implementation process. A variety of problems that arise, with a large number of practical materials, on the "decision" of the operability of a self concluded that a more profound summary.
In the third part, the author discusses the proposal to improve the maneuverability of the "decision >", which is the final point of this article. First, the author discusses the reasons for the non operability of the "decision >", mainly including the following two points: first, the reasons for the legislative aspects, and the majority of the laws in our country are very principled and poor operable. "Decision >" is also the case. The author has discussed the legislative reasons in this system, including legislation too advanced, divorced from China's reality; the relationship between foreign experience and China's national conditions is not well understood; the reasons for no investigation and lack of overall planning before the legislation are not done; and second is about < Decision > > The problem of legal status, due to the lack of legal status, leads to the conflict that can not be chosen in the conflict with the law of the same place; thus leads to the suggestion to improve the maneuverability of the "decision >", one is to modify part of the content of the "decision >", the two is to set up the supporting measures of the "decision >", and the three is to resolve the conflict with other laws.
The perfection of the judicial appraisal system only depends on the introduction and implementation of the "decision >" is far from enough. Therefore, we should look at the implementation of the "decision" with a prudent view and think about how to make up for the shortcomings in the decision in order to improve the future legislation and judicature so as to give full play to the role of judicial expertise and to ensure the efficiency of the lawsuit and the judicial correctness. Righteousness.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D926;D918.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 朱蘇力;制度是如何形成的?——關(guān)于馬歇爾訴麥迪遜案的故事[J];比較法研究;1998年01期

2 羅永新,羅紀(jì)鋒;從司法行政管理的角度看貫徹《決定》亟待解決的五方面問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)司法;2005年10期

3 劉鑫,常林;重構(gòu)我國(guó)司法鑒定體制中存在的問(wèn)題[J];法律與醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2005年01期

4 朱偉一;真正法學(xué)家的惟一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是什么?——讀《黑白方圓》[J];法人雜志;2004年01期

5 張永泉;論民事鑒定制度[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年05期

6 張玉鑲;司法鑒定學(xué)基本概念研究[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2001年01期

7 施敏;;對(duì)司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置與管理的再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];犯罪研究;2006年02期

本文編號(hào)：1871619