本文關(guān)鍵詞：跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院設(shè)置問(wèn)題研究　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院 鐵路檢察 司法地方化 司法管轄制度 司法改革

【摘要】：司法制度一旦確立,其在一段時(shí)間內(nèi)會(huì)保持相對(duì)的穩(wěn)定,這就從根本上決定其具有保守性和滯后性的特點(diǎn)。對(duì)其僅僅通過(guò)常規(guī)的“立改廢”來(lái)進(jìn)行“頭痛醫(yī)頭、腳痛醫(yī)腳”式的更新協(xié)調(diào)可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致司法制度在整體的體系和結(jié)構(gòu)上產(chǎn)生更大的矛盾和沖突。作為司法制度的重要內(nèi)容之一,科學(xué)合理設(shè)置司法管轄制度,使其符合思維邏輯和發(fā)展規(guī)律的運(yùn)行方式,是保證司法獨(dú)立和司法公正的先決條件。其中,檢察權(quán)作為特殊的司法權(quán),也要排除地方保護(hù)主義的弊端,促進(jìn)司法公正,保障人民權(quán)利。為確保檢察權(quán)依法獨(dú)立公正行使,合理配置司法資源,在我國(guó)設(shè)立跨行政區(qū)劃的人民檢察院顯得尤為必要。我國(guó)司法管轄區(qū)與行政區(qū)劃分離的情形從古至今都不乏先例,建國(guó)伊始,就設(shè)立了跨省行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察署,雖然之后被撤銷,但也是邁出了改革嘗試的第一步。任何事物的存在都不是無(wú)緣無(wú)故的,必定有其存在的合理性和必要性。跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院也是如此,其設(shè)立是針對(duì)司法管轄制度存在的問(wèn)題和缺陷產(chǎn)生的,能否在接下來(lái)的改革進(jìn)程中發(fā)揮實(shí)質(zhì)性的作用仍然有待觀察�，F(xiàn)階段,上海、北京兩地的改革試點(diǎn)已經(jīng)投入運(yùn)行,不僅代表著實(shí)踐的秉承與創(chuàng)新,同時(shí)還面臨著法律障礙、機(jī)制建設(shè)、案件界定等諸多問(wèn)題。文章對(duì)跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院設(shè)置及相關(guān)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)的理論歸納和實(shí)證研究。通過(guò)深入了解我國(guó)和域外檢察制度的歷史與現(xiàn)實(shí),以此為據(jù)提出問(wèn)題和主張,并預(yù)判改革的前景與未來(lái)。文章分四大部分。第一部分先通過(guò)理論分析指出設(shè)立跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院的法理依據(jù),再通過(guò)比較法研究,將跨行政區(qū)劃司法轄區(qū)在本國(guó)的歷史淵源和國(guó)外的司法經(jīng)驗(yàn)進(jìn)行整理歸納,得出其存在是具有合理性的結(jié)論。第二部分結(jié)合當(dāng)前的試點(diǎn),對(duì)上海市檢三分院、北京市檢四分院的設(shè)立及運(yùn)行情況進(jìn)行介紹,并著重在案件管轄方面的異同進(jìn)行分析和比較,明確設(shè)立跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院對(duì)司法改革具有權(quán)力制約、解決司法地方化、保障檢察權(quán)獨(dú)立、提高司法公信力的重大意義,并進(jìn)一步論證將鐵路檢察機(jī)關(guān)改造為跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院的可行性。第三部分對(duì)跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院改革在理論與實(shí)踐層面遇到的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析,包括立法滯后、各機(jī)關(guān)關(guān)系尚未理順、案件管轄缺乏頂層設(shè)計(jì)、機(jī)關(guān)地位與建制不明,造成這項(xiàng)改革在實(shí)踐操作中的困惑與困境。第四部分結(jié)合我國(guó)國(guó)情,對(duì)構(gòu)建跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院的法律定位、協(xié)作探索、層級(jí)設(shè)置、案件管轄等提出構(gòu)想,從頂層設(shè)計(jì)及細(xì)節(jié)規(guī)劃等方面提出完善的建議,以期對(duì)理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界了解跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院的實(shí)際運(yùn)作及下一步改革動(dòng)向提供一點(diǎn)有益的啟示。
[Abstract]:The judicial system is established, it will be relatively stable in a period of time, this is fundamentally decided its conservative and lagging. The only by conventional "to waste" to "the headache medicine head, update the coordination gap" would probably lead to the judicial system have great contradictions and conflicts in the system and the whole structure. As one of the important contents of the legal system, set up scientific and reasonable judicial jurisdiction system, operation mode which is in accordance with the logic of thinking and the development of law, is to ensure the judicial independence and justice prerequisite. Among them, the procuratorial power as special jurisdiction. To eliminate the maladies of local protectionism, and promote judicial justice, protect the rights of the people. In order to ensure independent and impartial exercise procuratorial authority according to law, the rational allocation of judicial resources, the establishment of cross administrative divisions of the people's Procuratorate is seized in China It is necessary. The separation zone and the administrative division under the jurisdiction of China's judicial cases are set up at the beginning of the founding, there is no lack of precedents, the provincial administrative divisions of the prosecutors, although after the cancellation, but it is also the first step of reform attempt. The existence of any thing is not for no reason, must have its rationality and necessity. Cross administrative procuratorate too, and it is set up for the existence of judicial jurisdiction system problems and defects, whether in the next reform process play a substantive role remains to be seen. At this stage, Shanghai, Beijing pilot reform has been put into operation, not only represents the inheriting and innovation practice, construction at the same time also facing legal obstacles, mechanism, problems of case definition. This paper has a systematic theory of induction and set the cross administrative procuratorate and related problems Empirical research. Through in-depth understanding of the history and reality of our country and the extraterritorial prosecutorial system, so as to put forward questions and ideas, and pre sentenced and future prospect of reform. This article is divided into four parts. The first part first pointed out by theoretical analysis of the legal basis for establishment of cross administrative Procuratorate, through comparative law research, summarizing the cross jurisdiction administrative divisions in the country's history and foreign judicial experience, that its existence is reasonable conclusion. The second part of the combination of the current pilot city of Shanghai seized three branch, the establishment and operation of Beijing city seized four yuan are introduced, with emphasis on the similarities and differences of jurisdiction and, the establishment of a clear cross administrative procuratorate has power restriction on judicial reform and solve the local justice, protection of procuratorial power independently and significance of improving judicial credibility, and Further proof of railway procuratorial organs for the transformation of the feasibility of cross administrative procuratorate. The third part is an analysis of cross administrative procuratorate reform in theory and practice level problems, including the legislative lag, each organ has not been straightened out, the lack of jurisdiction in top layer design, system status and authority is unknown, causing the reform in the practice of confusion with the difficulties in operation. In the fourth part, according to the situation of our country, the legal position, cross administrative procuratorate to construct collaborative exploration level settings, etc. put forward the conception of jurisdiction, from the top-level design recommendations and details of planning, in order to provide some useful inspiration for theory and practice to understand the actual operation and the next step of the reform trend of cross administrative procuratorate.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 徐向春;;順應(yīng)跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院改革要求 實(shí)現(xiàn)工作理念和工作機(jī)制創(chuàng)新[J];人民檢察;2016年Z1期

2 韓曉峰;傅鐸;李薇薇;;《食品藥品行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法銜接工作辦法》理解與適用[J];人民檢察;2016年11期

3 唐立;葉寧;;跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院刑事案件管轄的合理模式——從實(shí)踐探索看改革前景[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年06期

4 邵新;;跨行政區(qū)劃司法管轄制度改革的三條路徑[J];中國(guó)黨政干部論壇;2015年04期

5 洪碧華;;新時(shí)期全面深化司法體制改革的若干思考[J];法制與社會(huì);2014年33期

6 孫洪坤;;論建立與行政區(qū)劃適當(dāng)分離的司法管轄制度[J];東方法學(xué);2014年06期

7 張?jiān)破?俞斌;張思思;;論美國(guó)檢察權(quán)內(nèi)容、屬性及配置[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2013年23期

8 劉蘇建;劉光輝;;鐵檢改制后的設(shè)置及管轄問(wèn)題研究[J];人民檢察;2012年07期

9 中國(guó)鐵路運(yùn)輸檢察代表團(tuán);唐寶森;;俄羅斯交通運(yùn)輸檢察院體制及其改革[J];人民檢察;2008年15期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 門植淵;門洪訓(xùn);;跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院辦案機(jī)制研究——以辦理破壞環(huán)境資源刑事案件為切入點(diǎn)[A];人民檢察院組織法與檢察官法修改——第十二屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2016年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前6條

1 林中明;;上海市檢三分院：探索跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2015年

2 韓娜;;域外跨行政區(qū)劃設(shè)置法院的實(shí)踐[N];人民法院報(bào);2015年

3 徐漢明;;積極穩(wěn)妥地推進(jìn)設(shè)立跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

4 徐盈雁;趙曉星;;北京市人民檢察院第四分院成立[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

5 王治國(guó);戴佳;林中明;;全國(guó)首個(gè)跨行政區(qū)劃法院檢察院在上海成立[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

6 王雅琴;;別具特色的法國(guó)司法制度[N];學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 劉捚;跨行政區(qū)劃?rùn)z察院組織體制研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2016年

2 秦靜;與行政區(qū)劃適當(dāng)分離的司法管轄制度改革研究[D];淮北師范大學(xué);2015年

3 黃欣欣;與行政區(qū)劃適當(dāng)分離管轄制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

4 楊柳;鐵路檢察院案件管轄范圍研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2014年

5 周濱;改革背景下的中國(guó)鐵路檢察制度探析[D];天津商業(yè)大學(xué);2012年

6 林涵;司法規(guī)律視野下的檢察權(quán)配置[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

7 樊曉茜;中俄運(yùn)輸檢察制度比較研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2010年

8 郁俊平;論司法改革的價(jià)值取向[D];西北師范大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1390275