本文選題：唐朝　切入點：7-9世紀(jì)　出處：《陜西師范大學(xué)》2011年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：唐朝司法制度是唐朝法律制度的重要組成部分。本文主要比較研究唐朝司法制度與東羅馬帝國、中古印度、阿拉伯帝國、新羅、日本司法制度,以及論述高麗王朝、越南李朝等繼受唐朝司法制度的情況、對后世諸朝、少數(shù)民族政權(quán)的影響情況。通過與東羅馬帝國、中古印度、阿拉伯帝國、新羅、日本司法機(jī)構(gòu)比較研究表明,唐朝司法機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置十分健全,而中古印度、東羅馬帝國的司法機(jī)構(gòu)很不健全,二者基本上有審判機(jī)關(guān),而沒有監(jiān)察和司法行政機(jī)關(guān)。阿拉伯帝國直到8世紀(jì)時的阿巴斯王朝才正式建立司法審判機(jī)構(gòu)。新羅和日本的司法機(jī)構(gòu)從唐朝繼受而來,有很大的相似性。 通過與東羅馬帝國、中古印度、阿拉伯帝國對比訴訟制度,研究表明,唐對訴訟規(guī)定很細(xì),從告發(fā)、受理到調(diào)解等都有規(guī)范,且對訴訟有很多限制。這些限制中有些規(guī)定,如親親相隱的訴訟限制有一定的倫理關(guān)懷,與現(xiàn)代法制中的親屬作證特免權(quán)類似。唐朝還有一項調(diào)解制度,從鄉(xiāng)、里、坊直到中央司法機(jī)關(guān),都有調(diào)解的責(zé)任和義務(wù)。在阿拉伯帝國,也允許調(diào)解,但是,不是司法官員的調(diào)解,而是信徒之間的調(diào)和。在中古印度社會里,基層的村社首腦帕特爾也負(fù)責(zé)調(diào)解居民糾紛,說明也有調(diào)解規(guī)定。東羅馬帝國實行的非程式訴訟,即非常訴訟,與唐朝的訴訟程序很相似。都強(qiáng)調(diào)了司法官員的主動性和公權(quán)力的介入。區(qū)別在于唐朝訴訟性質(zhì)不分民事和刑事,只要有訴訟案件,除了能調(diào)解的外,都采用刑事手段來受理。而東羅馬帝國時期,延續(xù)了羅馬共和國以來的司法傳統(tǒng),在受理訴訟案件上區(qū)分了民事和刑事,當(dāng)事人可以依個人情況決定提起何種訴訟,如果提起民事訴訟,被告將受到財產(chǎn)處罰；如果采取刑事訴訟,被告將受到人身處罰。新羅和日本在訴訟制度上,建立了與唐朝一致的先進(jìn)的訴訟制度。日本在繼受唐朝司法制度的同時,也輸入了唐朝所代表的中華禮樂文化,所以,在有關(guān)回避制度、拷訊制度、訴訟制度等方面,都有儒家文化的因子。與唐朝司法制度內(nèi)含的維護(hù)君權(quán)、維護(hù)倫理道德的精神和原則是一致的。 通過比較審判制度,表明,唐朝司法行政與司法審判分立。在審判程序上,法律對傳票、證據(jù)的獲得、證人的限制、對法官的要求、刑訊、死刑復(fù)核、上訴等的規(guī)定相當(dāng)精確,體現(xiàn)了唐朝較高的立法水平。中古印度除了王室法院外,沒有固定的司法機(jī)構(gòu),只能靠官員在各處巡察辦案。審判上,也只有對證人、證據(jù)的規(guī)定,沒有庭審和上訴。而且中古印度大多數(shù)案件是以神判為主。阿拉伯帝國和東羅馬帝國的審判程序相對而言,比較規(guī)范,對證據(jù)、證人、庭審、上訴等有較明確的規(guī)定。阿拉伯帝國審判制度分為專門審理穆斯林案件和非穆斯林案件的兩種制度。對穆斯林案件的審理,司法官員必須要根據(jù)當(dāng)事人所屬教法派的主張來審理,非穆斯林案件根據(jù)當(dāng)事人的信仰來審理。東羅馬帝國案件不公開審理,當(dāng)事人還需要支付訴訟費(fèi),證據(jù)由主張權(quán)利的人提供。在審判期限上,唐朝不僅規(guī)定了審判期限,而且還以單行法形式規(guī)定了物權(quán)訴訟時效。而羅馬法只有訴訟時限和物權(quán)訴訟時效。在法官責(zé)任追究和保護(hù)方面,羅馬法沒有明文規(guī)定。而唐朝律法明確了司法官員的責(zé)任和對司法官員的保護(hù)措施。 通過比較司法監(jiān)察制度,研究表明,唐朝司法監(jiān)督制度規(guī)范,分為內(nèi)外兩個部分。內(nèi)部監(jiān)督是司法機(jī)構(gòu)系統(tǒng)內(nèi)的監(jiān)督,外部監(jiān)督機(jī)制是由御史臺制度、諫官制度、錄囚制度等組成。內(nèi)外已經(jīng)構(gòu)成了一個嚴(yán)密的監(jiān)察體系。而中古印度沒有像唐朝那樣的專門的監(jiān)察機(jī)關(guān),只是上級監(jiān)督下級,國王監(jiān)督地方。而對于國王司法活動的監(jiān)督,則是寄希望于宗教約束。阿拉伯帝國的阿巴斯王朝時期,麥查里木院是近似于司法監(jiān)督的機(jī)關(guān)。東羅馬帝國則沒有具體的司法監(jiān)督機(jī)構(gòu),而是由各級行政首腦兼理司法,進(jìn)而監(jiān)督下級的司法活動。羅馬皇帝則監(jiān)督整個帝國的司法活動。 通過比較監(jiān)獄制度,研究結(jié)果表明,唐朝監(jiān)獄制度已經(jīng)具有現(xiàn)代監(jiān)獄四大功能中的三個,即控制功能、懲罰功能和維護(hù)功能。而且實行男女犯人分開關(guān)押。唐朝的監(jiān)獄不僅關(guān)押自由刑犯人,也有與羅馬監(jiān)獄一樣的職能,關(guān)押待決犯和臨時羈押犯。中古印度、阿拉伯帝國監(jiān)獄帶有明顯的懲罰性質(zhì)。 通過比較,結(jié)論是,唐朝司法制度成就輝煌,具體如下 1、它是7-9世紀(jì)亞洲司法制度的最高成就。7-9世紀(jì),亞洲各國中,印度還在使用宗教法典—《摩奴法論》,沒有完備的世俗法律,更不要說司法制度了。只有阿拉伯帝國司法制度可與唐朝司法制度相提并論。但是直到阿拉伯帝國的阿巴斯王朝時期,司法制度才逐步建立起來,王朝的法制還很不完備的。故此,在司法制度的完備性、先進(jìn)性方面遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不如唐朝。而東亞的統(tǒng)一新羅和日本正處在社會轉(zhuǎn)型和法制繼受階段,正是通過繼受唐朝司法制度,才使得各自國家建立起先進(jìn)的司法制度,走上中古新興國家的行列,形成新的東亞國際關(guān)系格局。 2、它也是當(dāng)時世界司法制度的杰出代表。7-9世紀(jì)的世界上,能真正與唐朝比肩的除了亞洲的阿拉伯帝國,就是地跨歐亞大陸的東羅馬帝國了。6世紀(jì)東羅馬帝國皇帝組織編撰的《國法大全》,盡管標(biāo)志著羅馬法已經(jīng)發(fā)展到最發(fā)達(dá)、最完備階段,是歐洲歷史上第一部系統(tǒng)完整的法典,也是歐洲近代以后大部分國家法律發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)。但它卻是奴隸制末期歷史上一部最完備的成文法典,而唐朝的《唐律疏議》已經(jīng)是封建時代的法律集大成者了。 3、唐律所代表的中華法系是中華文明成就的智慧結(jié)晶。中華法系在立法目的、理論、法典編制等方面與羅馬法所代表的羅馬法系存在很大的不同。同時,在古代四大文明區(qū)域,中華文明是唯一沒有中斷的文明形態(tài)。故此,中華法系也是四大文明古國中唯一存在的法系。唐律是建立在中華禮樂文明之上的,所以在中華法系影響所及的區(qū)域,伴隨著唐朝司法制度的傳入,中華禮樂文明的制度文化、思想文化也跟著傳入進(jìn)來。正是因為繼受了唐律,才傳入了禮樂文明,而禮樂文明的到來則改變著當(dāng)?shù)匚幕?推動著當(dāng)?shù)氐陌l(fā)展。最終,導(dǎo)致了東亞文化的統(tǒng)一。而“東亞歷史文化的統(tǒng)一,乃中國文化向東亞鄰近諸國輻射的產(chǎn)物�！雹龠@也足以說明了唐朝司法制度在世界上的地位的特殊。
[Abstract]:The judicial system of the Tang Dynasty is an important part of the legal system of the Tang Dynasty. This article studied the judicial system of the Tang Dynasty and Rome Empire, medieval India, the Empire of Arabia, Xinluo, Japan and the judicial system, discusses the Korea Dynasty, Vietnam etc. following the judicial system of the Tang Dynasty "situation, on the later dynasties, minority influence of national political situation. With the Rome Empire, in medieval India, the Empire of Arabia, Xinluo, a comparative study of the Japanese judicial institutions show that the Tang Dynasty legal system perfect, and in medieval India, the judiciary Rome empire was not perfect, there are basically two judicial organs, without supervision and judicial administrative organs in Arabia until eighth Century when the Empire. Abbas Wang Zhaocai established the judicial institutions. Xinluo and Japan from the Tang Dynasty and the judiciary, is very similar.
With the Rome Empire, medieval India, the study showed that the Arabia Empire contrast litigation, litigation, Tang to fine, from information, accepting to mediation are standardized, and there are many restrictions on litigation. Some of these rules, such as concealment of litigation limitation has certain ethical care, and modern in the legal system of privilege of Relatives Witness in Tang Dynasty. There is a similar mediation system, from the township, in the square until the central judicial organ, have mediation responsibilities and obligations. In the Empire of Arabia, but also allow mediation, judicial officials, not the mediation between believers harmonic. In medieval India society, the grassroots the village leader Patel is also responsible for mediating disputes between residents, indicating a mediation rules. The East Rome Empire implemented non litigation program, which is very similar to the lawsuit proceedings. Emphasize the initiative and judicial officials The public authority intervention. The difference is the nature of the proceedings is not divided into civil and criminal litigation, as long as there is, in addition to mediation, the criminal means to accept. The East Rome Empire, the continuation of the Republic of Rome since the judicial tradition, in accepting the litigation division of civil and criminal, the parties may according to the individual situation decided to mention what kind of litigation, if the civil lawsuit, the defendant will be property punishment; if taken in criminal proceedings, the defendant will be physically punished. Xinluo and Japan in the litigation system, and established the Tang Dynasty consistent with advanced litigation system. In Japan following the judicial system of the Tang Dynasty at the same time, also entered the Tang Dynasty on behalf of the Chinese music culture, so in the avoidance system, interrogation system, litigation and other aspects, there are factors of Confucian culture. And the judicial system of the Tang Dynasty included the maintenance of sovereignty, maintain Aaron The spirit and principle of morality and morality are consistent.
By comparing the trial system, that the judicial administrative and judicial separation. In the trial, the law of summons, evidence, witness restrictions, requirements for judges, torture, the death penalty review provisions, appeal fairly accurate, reflects the high level of legislation of Tang Dynasty in medieval India. In addition to the royal court. No jurisdiction is fixed, can only rely on officials handling everywhere. The trial, only to witness, evidence rules, without trial and appeal. But most of the cases are in medieval India. Arabia's Emperor God sentenced and Rome Empire trial procedures relatively standardized, on the evidence, the witness. The trial, appeals have clear rules. The two kinds of system of imperial Arabia trial system for special cases in Muslim and non muslims case. The Muslim case, judicial officials must according to the It belongs to teaching advocates to hear the case to trial, non Muslim beliefs. According to the Rome Empire case is not a public hearing, the parties also need to pay legal fees and evidence provided by the rights of people. In the trial period, the Tang Dynasty not only set the trial period, but also by special law the real right limitation. But Rome law only has the lawsuit and the real limitation. The judge responsibility and protection, Rome law does not expressly. But the Tang Dynasty has made clear the judicial officials and the responsibility of the protection measures for judicial officials.
Through the comparison of the judicial supervision system, research shows that the Tang Dynasty judicial supervision system, divided into two parts. Internal supervision is the supervision of the judiciary system, external supervision mechanism is composed of Yushitai system, admonisher system, recording system etc. and has formed a strict supervision system. And in medieval India not like the Tang Dynasty that the special supervision organs, supervision is lower, the king and the king. The supervision of local judicial supervision activities, is in the hope of religious constraints. The Empire of Arabia's Abbas Dynasty, Tarim academy Mai Cha is approximate to the judicial supervision. Rome Empire has no specific judicial supervision. But by the administrative leaders at all levels of administrative jurisdiction, and supervise the judicial activities. Rome is the emperor of the Empire supervision and judicial activities.
Through the comparison of the prison system, the results show that the prison system of the Tang Dynasty has three modern prison four functions, namely, control function, penalty function and maintenance function. And men and women prisoners held separately. The Tang Dynasty not only for freedom penalty prisoners, and Rome have the same function of the prison, detention pending crime and temporary custody of prisoners. In medieval India, the Empire of Arabia prison with obvious nature of the punishment.
By comparison, the conclusion is that the judicial system of the Tang Dynasty has made brilliant achievements, as follows.
1, it is the judicial system of the 7-9 century Asian highest achievement in the.7-9 century, Asian countries, India still use religious code - < manu law >, no secular law perfect, not to mention the judicial system. Only the Empire of Arabia judicial system and judicial system of the Tang Dynasty can be compared. But until the Empire of Arabia the Abbas Dynasty, the judicial system was gradually established, the legal system is still not complete Dynasty. Therefore, the completeness of the judicial system, the advanced sex is far less than the Tang Dynasty. And the reunification of Xinluo in East Asia and Japan is in the social transformation and legal succession stage, it is through the judicial system of the Tang Dynasty, which makes the each country to establish advanced judicial system, go on in emerging countries ranks, formed the new pattern of international relations in East Asia.
2, it is also the time of the world judicial system of outstanding representatives of the.7-9 century in the world, can really equate with Tang Dynasty except the Asian empire of Arabia, is across Eurasia, East Rome Empire.6 century Rome Empire emperor compiles < corpusjuriscivilis >, although Rome marked method has been developed to the most developed. The most complete stage, is Europe's first system complete code, is also the modern European after the foundation of the development of law in most countries. But it is the end of slavery history one of the most complete written code, and the law of the Tang Dynasty Tang Shu Yi "is the master of law > a feudal era.
3, Tang on behalf of the Chinese legal system is the crystallization of wisdom of the Chinese civilization. The Chinese legal system in the legislative purpose, theory, code and other aspects of the law of Rome on behalf of the Rome law is very different. At the same time, in the area of the four ancient civilizations, Chinese civilization is the only one without interruption form. Therefore, the existence and uniqueness the law of the Chinese legal system is also the four ancient civilizations in the Tang Dynasty. It is established on the basis of the Chinese civilization, so that in the Chinese legal system and regional effects, with the spread of judicial system of the Tang Dynasty, the Chinese civilization system culture, ideology and culture also follow the incoming in. Because it is affected by the following Tang Dynasty, it was introduced to the ritual of civilization, civilization and the arrival of changing the local culture, to promote local development. Finally, the unity of the East Asian cultures. The "unity of East Asian history and culture, is the culture of China to the East The product of the radiation of the neighboring countries. (1) this also illustrates the special status of the Tang Dynasty's judicial system in the world.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：陜西師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：K242

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 吳建雄;中國二元司法模式研究[D];中南大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：1624311