我国法院民事审执分离的法理学思考

发布时间：2018-04-29 19:55

本文选题：执行难 + 民事执行权　；参考：《西南政法大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：近年来，随着社会主义市场经济的不断发展，人们之间的经济纠纷日益增多，法院的司法工作量成几何倍数增长，而执行难使这些既定的生效的裁判不能得到实现，判决所肯定或矫正的社会正义也不能彰显。不能兑现的司法裁判使法院的公信力与权威成了一纸空文。执行难问题正在严重损害我国的司法权威。执行难已经造成了很多的社会问题。而现阶段我国法院的民事执行制度却难以更好的适应经济高速发展情况下，克服社会矛盾丛生，执行效率低下，生效判决难以执行的窘迫现状。本文以解决执行难困境为目的，从梳理我国法院民事审执关系的发展脉络出发，剖析造就执行难题的理论根源—民事执行权性质定位问题，探讨现行法院民事执行权与民事审判权关系的制度性困境，并提取一些不成熟的制度性设想。在写作中，笔者试图从多方面对这些问题进行了说明与论证，希望为我国民事执行理论之建构、民事执行力的提高及破解执行难的困境有所裨益。本文具体的论证思路为：首先，，引言里提出了我国现阶段民事执行难的现状与困境。其次，分析了实务界与法学界对于我国民事制度，特别是对于法院在民事执行中的角色定位、司法权与民事执行权之关系、民事执行权的性质及审执分离等问题的理论争议。其中，重点探讨了学界对于民事执行权性质的不同学说。正文的第一部分中，主要梳理了我国法院民事执行与民事审判关系的发展脉络，分析了现行法院领导的执行局模式的局限性，并不能实现真正的民事执行与民事审判的分离，对于日益恣肆的执行难问题也是力不从心。最后得出结论：这一切的根源在于传统及现行民事执行工作对于民事执行权的认识存在误区。所以，厘清法院民事执行与民事审判之关系，建构科学合理的民事执行体系的基础在于对民事执行权性质的正确认识与定位。在第二部分中，深入讨论了构建科学民事执行制度的理论基础—民事执行权的性质与定位。首先，分析了民事执行的定义与特征。同时也提出了民事执行包含执行实施与执行裁决的双重执行，并提出了现行民事执行中两者不分的现状。其次，从分析司法权与行政权性质之比较的角度探讨了民事执行权的性质。最终得出了民事执行权是行政权的论点。接着论述了民事执行权的内部权力构成，细化了民事执行权的权能。。最后还讨论了民事执行权的功能及价值追求。通过对民事执行及民事执行权、性质、特征及功能的探讨，在理论上揭示了现行的我国法院民事执行与民事审判关系的不合理性。在第三部分中，主要从制度运行的角度剖析了现行民事执行制度所处的困境。首先，司法权与行政权及司法权内部分权制衡相互制约之困境。执行局模式并不能很好的实现法院在民事执行中其他权力对其的外部制约与法院内部自身的分权制衡及制约。其次，维护司法公正、权威与抑制司法腐败之困境。民事执行工作的积极主动性、随意性与不确定性、偏向性等特点与司法审判的特点背道而驰。现阶段的由法院行使民事执行权有损于司法的中立性与公正性，有损于树立司法的公正与权威形象。同时，在现行的民事执行与民事审判关系下，法院的执行局模式使执行局得不到很好的监督与制约，执行腐败严重。第三，民事执行效率低下的困境。司法审判权所追求的首要价值与民事执行工作的价值追求矛盾，且司法权的弱小、资源有限并不能为民事执行提供更多的人力、财力、物力的支撑。另一方面，现行民事执行制度并不具有经济性。司法主导下的民事执行效率存在很大的问题。从而论证了现行法院民事执行与民事审判关系必须更彻底改革的必要性。最后一部分，在结合西方法治发达国家成熟民事执行经验的基础上，提出了实现彻底的民事执行权与审判权分离的制度设想。具体来说，主要提出了以行政机关为执行主体的民事执行模式。并构建了包括行政监督、司法监督等新型的民事执行监督机制，提出了进一步规范与监督行政机关民事执行的可能。同时，根据以行政机关为民事执行主体的模式建构，对我国的执行救济制度也提出了一些建议。最后，借鉴英美两国的“藐视法庭罪”提出了建立我国的民事执行不履行之司法惩戒制度。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the continuous development of the socialist market economy, the economic disputes between people are increasing, the judicial workload of the court has increased in a geometric way, but it is difficult to implement the established referees, and the social justice that the judgment is affirmed or corrected can not be revealed. The judicial referee that cannot be cashed makes the court The enforcement difficulty is seriously damaging our country's judicial authority. The implementation difficulty has caused many social problems. But at the present stage, the civil execution system of the court in our country is difficult to adapt to the rapid economic development, overcome the social shield, the execution efficiency is low, and the effective judgment is difficult. In order to solve the difficult situation of execution, this paper, aiming at solving the difficult situation of execution, starts from combing the development of the civil adjudication relationship in the court of our country, analyzes the theoretical root of the problem of execution, the problem of the nature of the civil execution right, and probes into the Institutional Predicament of the relationship between the civil enforcement power and the right of civil trial, and extracts some of the problems. In writing, the author tries to explain and demonstrate these problems from many sides, hoping to be beneficial to the construction of the civil enforcement theory, the improvement of civil execution and the difficulty of solving the difficult implementation.
The concrete proof of this article is as follows:
First, the introduction puts forward the present situation and predicament of the difficult civil execution in our country. Secondly, it analyzes the theoretical disputes on the civil system of our country, especially the role orientation of the court in the civil execution, the relationship between the judicial power and the civil enforcement power, the nature of the civil execution right and the separation of the examination. This paper focuses on the different doctrines of the nature of civil execution.
In the first part of the text, it mainly combs the development of the relationship between civil execution and civil trial in our country, analyzes the limitations of the executive board mode of the current court leadership, and can not realize the separation of real civil execution and civil trial. The root of all the reasons lies in the misunderstanding of the traditional and the current civil enforcement work on the civil enforcement power. Therefore, to clarify the relationship between the civil execution of the court and the civil trial and the construction of a scientific and reasonable civil execution system is the correct understanding and orientation of the nature of the civil enforcement power.
In the second part, the theoretical basis for the construction of the system of civil enforcement of science, the nature and orientation of civil enforcement power, is discussed. First, the definition and characteristics of civil execution are analyzed. At the same time, the dual enforcement of civil execution including implementation and enforcement of adjudication is also proposed, and the current situation of both civil execution is proposed. Secondly, the nature of civil execution right is discussed from the angle of the comparison of judicial power and the nature of administrative power. Finally, the argument of civil execution right is administrative power. Then, the internal power composition of civil execution right is discussed, and the power of civil execution power is refined. Finally, the function and value pursuit of civil execution right are discussed. The discussion of the civil enforcement and civil execution, the nature, the character and the function of the civil execution, in theory reveals the unreasonable relation between the civil execution and the civil trial of the court in our country.
In the third part, the plight of the current civil execution system is analyzed from the point of view of the operation of the system. First, the judicial power and the administrative power and the balance of the rights and balances within the judicial power are restricted to each other. The executive board model can not well realize the external constraints of the court in the civil execution and the internal constraints of the court and the inner court itself. Second, maintaining judicial justice, authority and restraining judicial corruption. The active initiative of civil execution, arbitrariness and uncertainty, deviation and other characteristics are contrary to the characteristics of judicial trial. The exercise of civil execution by the court at the present stage is detrimental to the neutrality and impartiality of the judiciary and is detrimental to the establishment of the judiciary. At the same time, under the relationship between the current civil execution and the civil trial, the executive board mode of the court makes the executive board not well supervised and restricted, and the execution of corruption is serious. Third, the dilemma of low efficiency in civil execution. The weakness of judicial power and limited resources can not provide more human, financial and material support for civil execution. On the other hand, the current civil execution system is not economical. There is a great problem in the efficiency of civil execution under the jurisdiction of the judiciary. The necessity of leather.
In the last part, on the basis of combining the mature civil enforcement experience of the developed countries with the rule of law in the west, the system is put forward to realize the separation of the complete civil enforcement power and the judicial power. In particular, the civil execution mode of the executive body is mainly put forward, and a new type of people, including administrative supervision and judicial supervision, is constructed. The possibility of further standardizing and supervising the civil execution of the administrative organs is put forward. At the same time, some suggestions are put forward on the basis of the model construction of the administrative organ as the subject of civil execution. Finally, the civil enforcement of China is proposed for reference by the "contempt of court crime" in Britain and the United States. The system of judicial punishment performed.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D926.2;D925.1

【参考文献】