会审公廨是中国的审判机关异议

发布时间：2018-05-06 22:32

本文选题：会审公廨 + 中国的审判机关　；参考：《学术月刊》2013年10期

【摘要】：在对会审公廨的研究中,有一种观点似乎已成定论,即其是中国的审判机关。然而事实并非如此。把会审公廨与华界的中国审判机关和会审公廨收回后租界内设置的中国审判机关相比较,可以发现它们在审判机关体系、审判人员组成、适用的实体法和程序法等方面都不一样。从法制的统一性角度来分析和论证,可以说明会审公廨不是中国自己的审判机关,而是租界自己的审判机关。再从《上海洋泾浜设官会审章程》及其运行、会审公廨的差异、华界与租界间使用的引渡、辛亥革命后的变化等四个方面来看,也能说明会审公廨是租界的审判机关而不是中国的审判机关。租界需要建立、运作自己审判机关有三大原因,即是为了实现租界自治、抵制中国的进步力量、进一步侵害中国的主权等。正确认识会审公廨的性质,有利于全面理解中国近代法制的演变和发展、中国租界法制的体系和性质、中国近代审判权和国家主权受损的状况等一系列问题,因此不可忽视。
[Abstract]:In the study of the mixed Court, one view seems to have come to the conclusion that it is the judicial organ of China. But that is not the case. By comparing the mixed Court with the Chinese judicial organs in the Chinese border and the Chinese judicial organs set up in the concession after the withdrawal of the mixed Court, we can find that they are in the judicial organ system and the composition of the judges. The applicable substantive law and procedural law are different. From the point of view of the unity of the legal system, it can be concluded that the mixed Court is not the judicial organ of China itself, but the judicial organ of the concession. From the following four aspects: the articles of Association of Shanghai Pidgin officials and their operation, the differences in the mixed Court, the extradition used between the Chinese border and the concession, and the changes after the 1911 Revolution, It also shows that the mixed Court is the judicial organ of the concession and not the judicial organ of China. There are three main reasons for the establishment of concession and the operation of its own judicial organ, that is, to realize autonomy of concession, resist China's progressive force, and further encroach upon China's sovereignty, and so on. A correct understanding of the nature of the mixed Court is conducive to an overall understanding of the evolution and development of China's modern legal system, the system and nature of China's concession legal system, and the state of China's modern judicial power and state sovereignty.
【作者单位】：华东政法大学法律学院;
【基金】：作者主持的上海市哲学社科规划项目“‘西法东渐’与近代中国寻求法制自主性研究”(2011BFX005)的阶段性成果作者负责的国家社科基金重大项目“法律文明史”(11&ZD081)第11子课题“近代中国法”的前期成果之一
【分类号】：D929;D926

【参考文献】