我国法官问责制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-07 18:08

本文选题：司法责任 + 责任豁免　；参考：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：2015年9月21日,最高人民法院出台《最高人民法院关于完善人民法院司法责任制的若干意见》(以下简称"《意见》"),提出建立以违法审判责任为核心的司法责任制,明确法官为其履职行为承担责任,并对案件质量终身负责。追溯我国法官问责制度的发展历史,从古代的"出入人罪"到近代的"错案责任"、"违法审判责任",再发展至目前的"司法责任制",我国的法官问责制度也在不断探索和完善。最初在打击冤假错案的浪潮下所产生的错案责任追究制在后期实践中也逐渐显现诸多弊端,如干涉司法独立、打击法官工作积极性等问题。虽然各地法院也针对上述问题进行积极探索,并制定相关细则,但由于缺乏统一的规范,使得法官问责制度纷繁杂乱,实际操作乱象纷呈。《意见》的出台从全国层面上确立了统一的问责制度,并将法官责任定位为违法审判责任。《意见》中涵盖审判权力运行机制、司法人员职责与权限、审判责任的认定与追究,以及法官的履职保障等内容,较为详细地阐述了审判责任的基础、范围、规则、程序、保障等问题。《意见》指出应坚持责任与保障相结合的原则,因此,责任追究和责任豁免均是司法责任的应有之义。其中,违法审判责任追究制度作为审判行为的监督机制,若要在司法独立的基础上实现对审判行为的有效约束,必然要确立一个明确的标准作为评价依据。这一标准的确立应坚持"权责明确、权责一致"的原则,依据法官的职权界定相应的责任,从而明确合理的追责范围,建立科学的追责基准。根据《意见》所列举的追责是由,可按照外在表现形式分为"错误裁判"与"违法行为"两种情形,并坚持主客观相结合的原则,依据情节轻重确定不同的追责标准。此外,还应建立与责任追究制度相辅的责任豁免制度。从宏观上确定责任豁免制度,从微观上加强制度建设。纵观国外及国际做法,法官的责任豁免都是相对的,因此我国法官责任的豁免也应是特定、有限制的。因此,违法审判追究机制与责任豁免机制相互结合,共同构成有效、合理的法官问责机制,进而实现司法公正与司法独立的制衡。
[Abstract]:On September 21, 2015, the Supreme people's Court issued the opinions of the Supreme people's Court on improving the Judicial responsibility system of the people's Courts (hereinafter referred to as "opinions"), and proposed to establish a judicial responsibility system with the responsibility of illegal trials as the core. Make it clear that the judge is responsible for his or her duties and is responsible for the quality of the case for life. Tracing back to the development history of our country's judges' accountability system, from the ancient "crime of breaking into the law" to the modern "wrong case responsibility", "illegal trial responsibility", and then to the current "judicial responsibility system", the system of our country's judge accountability system is also constantly exploring and perfecting. In the later stage of practice, the system of accountability for wrongdoings arising from the wave of cracking down on unjust and false cases has gradually revealed many drawbacks, such as interfering with the independence of the judiciary, attacking the enthusiasm of the judges in their work, and so on. Although local courts have also actively explored the above issues and worked out relevant rules, the lack of uniform norms has made the system of judges' accountability complicated and messy. The introduction of "opinions" has established a unified system of accountability at the national level, and has defined the responsibility of judges as the responsibility of illegal trials. It covers the operation mechanism of judicial power, the duties and powers of judicial personnel, The determination and investigation of the trial responsibility, as well as the guarantee of the judges' performance of their duties and so on, are expounded in detail, including the basis, scope, rules, procedures, safeguards, etc. The opinion points out that the principle of combining responsibility with security should be adhered to. Therefore, accountability and immunity are the proper meaning of judicial responsibility. In order to realize the effective restriction of judicial behavior on the basis of judicial independence, a clear standard must be established as the basis of evaluation. The establishment of this standard should adhere to the principle of "clear power and responsibility, consistent with power and responsibility", define the corresponding responsibility according to the judge's authority, so as to make clear the reasonable scope of responsibility, and establish a scientific standard of pursuing responsibility. According to the reason listed in opinion, it can be divided into two situations according to the external manifestation: "wrong judgment" and "illegal act", and adhere to the principle of combination of subjective and objective, and determine different standards of responsibility according to the seriousness of the circumstances. In addition, it is necessary to establish a system of exemption from liability, which is supplemented by the system of accountability. The system of liability exemption should be determined macroscopically and the construction of system should be strengthened from the micro point of view. Throughout the foreign and international practice, the immunity of judges is relative, so the immunity of our judges should be specific and limited. Therefore, the mechanism of investigating illegal trial and the mechanism of exemption of responsibility combine each other to form an effective and reasonable mechanism for the accountability of judges, and then to realize the balance between judicial justice and judicial independence.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.2

【相似文献】