审判权与执行权分离改革路径研究

发布时间：2018-03-19 15:32

本文选题：审判权　切入点：执行权　出处：《宁波大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：党的十八届四中全会通过的《中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》提出了完善司法体制,推动实行审判权和执行权相分离的体制改革试点。本文拟从实践中比较突出的“审执不分”、“审执一体”等制约执行权行使的现象出发,通过研究审判权执行权行使比较顺畅的域外先进经验和学界关于审判权与执行权分离的相关研究的筛选,提出在新形势下审判权和执行权相分离体制改革的路径,以供实践参考。文章第一部分以审判权与执行权实际运行情况开篇,在对审判权与执行权行使现状进行综述的基础上,对审判权与执行权行使中存在的比较突出的问题进行分析。比如,审判权与执行权的权力属性存在混淆导致两者权力边界不清晰,实践中的一些做法也使大众对两者的划分标准造成了一定的曲解,执行权地方化、上下级执行机构的组织形式行政化现象突出等。文章第二部分对不同法域的审判权执行权运行模式以及学界对该两者的相关研究成果进行梳理分析。首先,对不同法系和不同法域国家,大陆法系代表国家德国、法国,英美法系代表国家英国、美国以及我国香港和台湾地区等的审判权与执行权行使模式进行梳理研究,其次,对国内外学界关于审判权与执行权分离进行研究和分析,主要包括2000年左右执行权分权改革时期广大国内学者的相关研究成果以及近阶段相关学者的最新观点。再次,对各种模式进行综合分析筛选,提出将执行权继续配置在一般法院以及配置给专门执行法院的不利之处,以及笔者认为的恰当的配置方式。文章第三部分提出笔者认为可行的分离路径。主要分三步走,第一步先将审判权与执行权在法院内部实现彻底分离,解决执行权“低人一等”的问题,第二步探索将执行权分项进行剥离,将财产权利的执行交由司法行政机关行使,将限制人身权利的相关执行权交由公安机关行使,第三步逐渐实现执行机关在法院相关命令下行使职权,实现审判权与执行权的彻底分离。同时,还适当对分离后的执行权行使和监督模式进行了探讨。
[Abstract]:The "decision of the CPC Central Committee on comprehensively promoting the Rule of Law on several important issues" adopted by the fourth Plenary session of the 18 CPC Central Committee proposed the improvement of the judicial system. This article intends to proceed from the phenomenon of "not dividing trial and execution", which restricts the exercise of executive power, which is more prominent in practice, in order to promote the implementation of the system reform of the separation of judicial power and executive power. By studying the foreign advanced experience in the exercise of judicial power and the screening of academic research on the separation of judicial power and executive power, this paper puts forward the path to reform the system of separation of judicial power and executive power under the new situation. The first part of the article begins with the actual operation of judicial power and executive power, on the basis of summarizing the present situation of judicial power and executive power, This paper analyzes the prominent problems in the exercise of jurisdiction and executive power. For example, the confusion between the power attribute of judicial power and executive power leads to the unclear power boundary between the two. Some practices in practice have also caused the public to misinterpret the criteria for the division of the two and localize the power of execution. The second part of the article analyzes the operation mode of judicial power executive power in different jurisdictions and the academic circles' related research results. First of all, This paper combs and studies the models of the exercise of jurisdiction and executive power in different legal systems and different jurisdictions, the continental law system representing Germany, France, the Anglo-American law system on behalf of the United Kingdom, the United States and Hong Kong and Taiwan. Secondly, This paper studies and analyzes the separation of judicial power and executive power in domestic and foreign academic circles, mainly including the relevant research results of domestic scholars and the latest views of relevant scholars in recent stages during the period of power decentralization reform around 2000. Conducting a comprehensive analysis of the various models and proposing the continuing allocation of enforcement powers in the general courts and the disadvantages of allocating them to specialized enforcement courts, The third part of the article puts forward the separation path which the author thinks feasible. The first step is to completely separate the jurisdiction from the executive power within the court. To solve the problem of "inferiority" of the executive power, the second step is to explore the separation of the executive power, the transfer of the execution of the property rights to the judicial administrative organs, and the transfer of the relevant enforcement powers of restricting the personal rights to the public security organs. The third step is to gradually realize the executive organ to exercise its authority under the relevant orders of the court and to realize the complete separation of the judicial power and the executive power. At the same time, the mode of exercising and supervising the executive power after the separation is also discussed.
【学位授予单位】：宁波大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.2

【相似文献】