本文選題：跨區(qū)域管轄 + 行政干預(yù)��； 參考：《鄭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：黨的十八大從治國方略的高度提出了依法治國的要求,并將法治政府建設(shè)視為依法治國的核心,行政訴訟是推進法治政府建設(shè)的主要法律制度,其發(fā)展事關(guān)依法治國方略的實施。行政訴訟管轄制度是行政訴訟的一個重要制度,對于保護當事人訴訟權(quán)利和實體權(quán)利有著至關(guān)重要的意義。當前行政區(qū)劃與司法管轄區(qū)之間高度重合,由于傳統(tǒng)司法體制的原因,法院在人、財、物等方面受制于行政機關(guān),在行政審判實踐中來自行政機關(guān)的干預(yù)太多,司法公正受到嚴重影響,人民群眾對行政訴訟沒有信心,許多法院甚至無法做到依法受理行政案件,“三難問題”非常突出,使得大量的行政爭議得不到有效的解決,行政審判的公信力受到越來越多的質(zhì)疑。要改變這種狀況,必須采取有效措施解決行政機關(guān)對行政審判的干預(yù)問題,大幅提升行政審判的公信力和權(quán)威性。黨的十八屆三中全會提出了推動司法管轄與行政區(qū)劃適當分離的管轄制度改革的號召,十八屆四中全會又提出了探索設(shè)立跨行政區(qū)劃的人民法院,調(diào)整行政訴訟管轄制度的具體改革要求。這樣的規(guī)定使得行政案件的跨區(qū)域管轄在中央層面有了政策依據(jù)。其后新修改的《行政訴訟法》第18條第2款規(guī)定:“經(jīng)最高人民法院批準,高級人民法院可以根據(jù)審判工作的實際情況,確定若干人民法院跨行政區(qū)域管轄行政案件�！贝艘�(guī)定給行政案件的跨區(qū)域管轄帶來了進展,使得行政案件跨區(qū)域管轄在立法上也邁出的重要的一步。因此,在當前看來,推動司法管轄與行政區(qū)劃相分離,進行跨區(qū)域管轄改革來審理行政案件,是有效解決行政干預(yù)以及“三難”等主要問題的關(guān)鍵措施,能夠使人民群眾愿意放棄信訪的做法,轉(zhuǎn)而通過行政訴訟反映自己的訴求;能夠使行政審判更好地做到司法公正,推動良性法律秩序的發(fā)展,實現(xiàn)法治狀態(tài)。
[Abstract]:The 18th National Congress of the Party put forward the requirement of governing the country according to law from the height of the strategy of governing the country, and regarded the construction of the government by law as the core of governing the country according to law. Administrative litigation is the main legal system to promote the construction of the government ruled by law. Its development is related to the implementation of the strategy of governing the country according to law. The system of administrative litigation jurisdiction is an important system of administrative litigation, which is of great significance to protect the litigant rights and substantive rights. At present, there is a high degree of overlap between administrative divisions and judicial jurisdictions. Because of the reasons of the traditional judicial system, the courts are subject to administrative organs in the aspects of people, money, and property. In the practice of administrative trials, there is too much interference from administrative organs. Judicial justice has been seriously affected, the people have no confidence in administrative litigation, many courts cannot even handle administrative cases according to law. The "three difficult problems" are very prominent, and a large number of administrative disputes cannot be effectively resolved. The credibility of administrative trials is being questioned more and more. In order to change this situation, we must take effective measures to solve the interference of administrative organs in administrative trials, and greatly enhance the credibility and authority of administrative trials. The third Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee put forward a call for the reform of the jurisdiction system, which should be properly separated from administrative divisions, and the fourth Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee also proposed to explore the establishment of a people's court across administrative divisions. To adjust the specific reform requirements of the administrative litigation jurisdiction system. Such provisions provide a policy basis for cross-regional jurisdiction of administrative cases at the central level. Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Administrative procedure Law, which was revised later, stipulates: "with the approval of the Supreme people's Court, the higher people's Court may, in the light of the actual circumstances of the trial work, determine certain administrative cases of cross-administrative jurisdiction by the people's courts." This stipulation has brought the progress to the cross-regional jurisdiction of the administrative case, making the administrative case cross-regional jurisdiction also take an important step in the legislation. Therefore, at present, promoting the separation of judicial jurisdiction from administrative divisions and carrying out cross-regional jurisdictional reform to try administrative cases is the key measure to effectively solve the major problems such as administrative intervention and "three difficulties". It can make the people willing to give up the practice of petition and visit, and instead reflect their demands through administrative litigation; can make the administrative trial better achieve judicial justice, promote the development of benign legal order, and realize the state of rule of law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(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】

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)于進一步加強部分知識產(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)于進一步加強部分知識產(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;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10條

1 王淑玉;行政訴訟跨區(qū)域管轄改革研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2017年

2 付楊;論我國的行政訴訟政策[D];鄭州大學(xué);2017年

3 楊偉萍;行政訴訟交叉集中管轄制度研究[D];廣西大學(xué);2017年

4 董曉U，

本文編號：1982877