法院审级制度研究

发布时间：2018-09-12 15:34

【摘要】：法院审级制度改革是社会主义司法制度的自我完善与发展。法院审级制度是司法制度的重要组成部分,担负着多样化的司法功能,并且需要在不同的价值目标之间进行平衡与取舍。目前,大陆法系与英美法系国家的法院审级制度基本是三级三审制或四级三审制,而我国和前苏联等社会主义国家的法院审级制度基本是四级二审制,即二审终审制。面对这一制度现象,笔者思考的是,这种制度差异的背后是受着什么样的国家与社会观念基础的支配以及受着什么样的司法制度历史演进逻辑的影响?在社会转型时期,面对当前的司法实践困境,我国建立三审终审制度的必要性、可行性是什么?为此,本文以马克思主义法律观为指导,运用语义分析方法、历史分析方法、比较分析方法、结构分析方法、规范分析方法等多种研究方法,试图阐释法院审级制度的一般性理论问题,力图能够对法院审级制度改革理论研究和实践运作提供一个基础支点,以期丰富法院审级制度改革的理论研究,推进法院审级制度改革的理论合理性和实践可行性。按照这一写作思路,本文分为四章。第一章,法院审级制度的一般考察。本章主要探讨法院审级制度的原理、基本功能及功能实现条件,解决法院审级制度“是什么”的问题,为后续的理论探讨确立一个基本的理论分析起点。法院审级制度是司法制度的重要组成部分,是指一国法律规定的审判机关在纵向组织体系上的层次划分以及诉讼案件经过几级法院审理后,法院裁决立即发生法律效力的制度。法院审级制度的原理基础可以运用美国学者罗尔斯的程序正义理论及诉讼程序运行中的公正与效率之间的价值协调理论予以阐释。法院审级制度属于诉讼程序范畴,按照程序正义理论,法院审级制度属于不完善的程序正义。司法公正与司法效率都是民事诉讼程序应当促成实现的价值,这两种价值可以和谐共存,但又经常处于深沉的张力之中。受法院审判资源和当事人诉讼资源有限性的制约,存在着诉讼程序在价值层面上如何协调、平衡公正与效率之间的冲突问题。从这一意义上讲,法院审级制度实质上是司法公正与司法效率之间价值平衡的结果。法院审级制度的显性功能表现为两方面。一方面,法院审级制度是不完全程序正义的诉讼制度,在其运行过程中,通过审级监督使下级法院的审判活动受到上级法院和当事人及社会的监督,使司法权的运行过程更为公开、透明,有效克服了法官对案件事实问题和法律问题“主观擅断”的可能性,从而在更大程度上保证了法官司法判断的客观性。从严格意义上说,法院审级制度运行过程中,每一个审级的法院都要受到这种监督与制约。另一方面,维护法律的价值体系。法院审级制度能够为实现法官司法判断的客观性提供保障,由此带来的另一个功能性后果就是维护法律的价值体系。在解决权利冲突与纠纷的各种制度化方式中,通过终审法院对事实问题或法律问题的判断排除法运行中的障碍,以维护法的价值是法院审级制度的重要功能。法院审级制度的隐性功能是实现社会控制。保障法官司法判断的客观性和维护法的价值体系是法院审级制度的显性功能,但这两方面的显性功能的深层次指向则在于实现司法的社会控制。法院审级制度的社会控制机理可以概括为两个方面,即法律权威与司法行为的结合、法律价值与司法制度的结合。与立法权、行政权相比较,司法权及其表现形式——包括法院审级制度在内的司法制度,实现社会控制的正当性基础在于民主的局限性及司法权对民主局限性的克服。法院审级制度的功能实现需要具备一定的条件。一是社会的多元结构。二是司法的制度理性。三是司法的运行技术。四是法官的职业精神。第二章,法院审级制度的的比较法考察。本章主要探讨域外法院审级制度的历史发展脉络、制度观念基础的演变以及制度演进发展的路径。英国、德国、法国等域外国家的法院审级制度的发展脉络表明,中央政权司法权威的强化、案件事实问题与法律问题决定权的分离、形式化的法律推理技术、职业化的法官群体四个变量因素的出现推动了法院审级制度率先在西方国家得以确立并逐步形成了现行法院审级制度的基本面貌。在法院体系方面,基本上可以划分为两种类型:单一制国家法院体系与联邦制国家法院体系。主要特点表现为两方面:一是最高法院享有终审权;二是法院成为中央与地方权力结构关系的“调控器”。此外,各级法院的设置并不与行政区划相对应。在审级设置方面,可以归纳出四个方面的特征:一是多元化的审级制度体系;二是第三审为法律审;三是审级功能划分兼顾公正与效率之间的平衡;四是审级制度安排与法治的基本要求相呼应。英国等域外国家法院审级制度的历史演进及其现行的制度面貌是由其深层次的观念基础所决定的,这一观念基础在于自然法思想。在其演进过程中,通过形式化法律推理、法律审与事实审的分离等相应的制度安排和技术手段,在中央政权司法权威和职业化法官群体的推动下,始终注重法院裁决的形式合理性,为社会成员提供稳定的法律预期,并始终强调法律的自治性特征,避免法外因素对法院审级运行过程的干扰和不当影响。应该说,如果没有建立在自然法思想基础上的法律形式合理性与自治性观念作为制度导向,上述国家国家法院审级制度就很难能够获得社会公众的认可并成为其他国家吸收借鉴的制度样本。第三章,中国法院审级制度的回顾与反思。本章主要围绕中国法院审级制度的历史演进进行回顾与反思,以期解释现行法院审级制度实行二审终审制的相关变量。晚清至民国时期确立了三审终审制,第三审确定为法律审,成为我国现代法院审级制度的发端。二审终审制成为新民主主义革命和社会主义革命时期法院审级制度的实际样态。在新民主主义革命时期,在不同时期和不同革命根据地、解放区,先后出现过二审终审制和三审终审制。在当时的历史条件下,南京国民政府并不承认革命根据地和解放区的司法地位,不受理来自这些地区的三审案件。更为重要的是,革命根据地时期的司法意识形态强调司法机关在巩固革命政权、维护人民民主专政秩序的作用,大力提倡推行司法的人民化、大众化,便利人民群众诉讼。因而,二审终审制成为新民主主义革命和社会主义革命时期法院审级制度的崭新尝试。建国后,1951年《人民法院暂行组织条例》规定了个别案件实行三审终审制,1954年《人民法院组织法》则明确规定所有案件实行二审终审制并延续至今。建国后,前苏联法律和包括法院审级制度在内的司法制度对我国构建社会主义法院审级制度体系产生的样本作用表现为五个方面。一是彻底否定旧的法院体系,二是确立人民法院的性质与任务,三是审级设置,四是法院审级职能划分,五是对终审判决既判力的认识。同时,中国古代司法传统并不存在严格意义上的审级制度,无限审级,有多少级的行政机构就有多少级的审级层次,当事人可以冤情为由直诉到最高终审裁决者。上述因素的存在,使我国现行的法院审级制度定位在二审终审制,与之并驾齐驱的则是再审制度,从而与域外国家法院审级制度以三审终审制为原则,以再审制度为例外形成了制度差异。通过本文第二章和第三章的分析,在一定意义上,可以看出一个国家法院审级制度的实际样态取决于以下几方面的因素。一是社会结构分化,二是权利文化传统,三是法律思维方式,四是正当程序观念。第四章,中国法院审级制度的完善。本章主要是围绕着中国法院审级制度的完善动力、完善基点、完善框架进行探讨。中国法院审级制度的完善动力在于:一是现行法院审级制度的功能缺陷,二是公民权利诉求能力的提升,三是全球化时代的司法制度竞争,四是中国特色社会主义法律体系的形成。因此,如何通过相应的法院审级制度安排确保法律而不是其他标准成为解决权利与利益冲突的根本逻辑,已然成为必须回答的理论与实践命题。现行法院审级制度的完善动力决定了法院审级制度运行目标的选择是形式合理性优先而不是实质合理性优先,这既需要正确认识形式合理性与实质合理性的关系形态,更要充分认识到形式合理性优先的司法意义,一是维护了法律的权威;二是为社会成员的社会行为提供了理性预期;三是为公民权利的维护与发展提供了制度空间。上述三方面的司法意义可以概括为增强社会成员对司法审判的信任,更为充分地实现法院审级制度的社会控制功能。为此,现行法院审级制度应按照这一思路进行完善;小额简易纠纷实行一审终审制,使司法成本的投入与案件的复杂程度和法律意义相适应。其他纠纷以二审终审制为原则,以三审终审制为例外,即只有少数对于法律统一适用和法律解释具有重要意义的案件,在三审法院进行评估后才能进入三审终审程序,除此之外的其他案件仍应适用二审终审制,以此实现三审终审制的制度预期,并完善再审制度,实现从“无限再审”到“有限再审”的转变,切实维护司法裁决的既判力和司法权威。与此同时,应注重处理好司法意识形态与司法技术、深化法治与简化法治、审判资源与司法效益之间的关系,并合理划分四级法院的审级职能:基层法院负责审理一审案件,中级法院负责审理二审案件和一审案件,高级法院负责审理二审案件和三审案件,最高人民法院仅负责审理三审案件。在本文结语部分,笔者认为,为了确保法院审级制度的完善能够收到预期成效,对于法院审级制度完善过程中发生重要影响的相关因素进行梳理,从而为法院审级制度改革注入更多的理性思考,无疑是十分必要的。择其要者,当前法院审级制度重构需要对以下五个方面的相关要素给予足够的关注。一是正确认识法院审级制度所承载的制度功能,二是引导社会民众和法官群体养成形式化法律意识和法律思维,三是充分考虑社会公众对法院审级制度改革成本的承受能力,四是合理构建上下级法院审判业务关系,五是提升法官群体的社会公信力。
[Abstract]:The reform of the trial-level system of the court is the self-improvement and development of the socialist judicial system.The trial-level system of the court is an important part of the judicial system,which bears a variety of judicial functions and needs to be balanced and traded between different value objectives. The system of three-tier three-trial or four-tier three-trial is basically the system of four-tier two-trial in China and the former Soviet Union and other socialist countries, that is, the system of final trial of second instance. Influenced by the logic of the historical evolution of the system? In the period of social transformation, facing the current dilemma of judicial practice, what is the necessity and feasibility of establishing the system of third instance in China? For this reason, this paper, guided by Marxist legal concept, uses semantic analysis, historical analysis, comparative analysis, structural analysis, and standardizes the analysts. Law and other research methods attempt to explain the general theoretical problems of the court trial level system, trying to provide a basic fulcrum for the theoretical research and practical operation of the reform of the court trial level system, in order to enrich the theoretical research of the reform of the court trial level system, and promote the theoretical rationality and practical feasibility of the reform of the court trial level system. First, the writing method is divided into four chapters.
The first chapter is the general investigation of the court's trial-level system.This chapter mainly discusses the principle of the court's trial-level system, the basic functions and the conditions for its realization, and solves the problem of what is the court's trial-level system.It establishes a basic theoretical analysis starting point for the follow-up theoretical discussion.The court's trial-level system is an important part of the judicial system. Judicial organs in a country are divided into different levels in the vertical organizational system and the system in which a court ruling immediately takes effect after a lawsuit is heard by several courts. The principle basis of the system can be applied between the procedural justice theory of American scholar Rawls and the justice and efficiency in the operation of the lawsuit procedure. According to the theory of procedural justice, the system of court trial level belongs to imperfect procedural justice. Judicial justice and judicial efficiency are the values that civil procedure should promote to realize. These two values can coexist harmoniously, but are often in deep tension. Restricted by the limited trial resources of the court and the litigant's litigation resources, there exists the problem of how to coordinate the litigation procedure on the value level and balance the conflict between justice and efficiency.
On the one hand, the court trial level system is a litigation system with incomplete procedural justice. In the course of its operation, the trial activities of the lower courts are supervised by the higher courts, the parties and the society through the trial level supervision, which makes the operation of judicial power more open, transparent and effectively overcome. It ensures the objectivity of judges'judicial judgment to a greater extent. Strictly speaking, every court at the trial level should be subject to such supervision and restriction during the operation of the court trial system. On the other hand, it safeguards the value system of law. The trial-level system of the court can guarantee the objectivity of the judge's judgment, and the other functional consequence is to maintain the value system of the law. The value of law is an important function of the court trial system.
The implicit function of the court's trial-level system is to realize social control. It is the dominant function of the court's trial-level system to guarantee the objectivity of the judge's judgment and to maintain the value system of the law. But the deep direction of the two dominant functions lies in realizing the social control of the judiciary. The social control mechanism of the court's trial-level system can be summarized in two aspects. Comparing with legislative power and administrative power, judicial power and its manifestations, including the judicial system at the court level, the legitimacy of social control is based on the limitations of democracy and the overcoming of the limitations of democracy by judicial power.
The realization of the function of the trial-level system of the court needs certain conditions. First, the pluralistic structure of the society, second, the rationality of the judicial system, third, the operational technology of the judiciary, and fourth, the professional spirit of the judges.
Chapter two is a comparative study of the trial-level system of courts.This chapter mainly discusses the historical development of the trial-level system of extraterritorial courts, the evolution of institutional concepts and the path of the evolution of the system.The development of the court-level system in Britain, Germany and France shows that the judicial authority of the central regime has been strengthened, and the facts of the case have been revealed. The separation of the decision power of the question and the legal question, the formalized legal reasoning technology, and the appearance of the professional judge group have promoted the establishment of the court trial level system in the western countries and gradually formed the basic appearance of the current court trial level system. There are two main characteristics of the single system national court system and the federal system national court system: first, the Supreme Court enjoys the power of final adjudication; second, the court becomes the "regulator" of the relationship between the central and local power structure. The characteristics of this system are as follows: first, a pluralistic trial-level system; second, the third trial is a legal trial; third, the division of trial-level functions gives consideration to the balance between justice and efficiency; fourth, the arrangement of trial-level system corresponds to the basic requirements of the rule of law. In the course of its evolution, through the corresponding institutional arrangements and technical means, such as formal legal reasoning, the separation of legal trial and factual trial, and under the impetus of the judicial authority of the central regime and the group of professional judges, the rationality of the form of court decisions has always been emphasized and the society has become a society. Members of the Council provide stable legal expectations and always emphasize the autonomy of the law so as to avoid the interference and improper influence of extrajudicial factors on the operation of the court at trial level. It is difficult to get the approval of the public and become a sample of other countries.
The third chapter is about the retrospect and reflection of the trial-level system of Chinese courts. This chapter mainly focuses on the historical evolution of the trial-level system of Chinese courts, with a view to explaining the relevant variables of the implementation of the second-instance final trial system in the current court trial-level system. In the new democratic revolution period, in different periods and in different revolutionary bases and liberated areas, the second instance system and the third instance system appeared successively. The people's government does not recognize the judicial status of the revolutionary base areas and liberated areas and does not accept cases of third instance from these areas. More importantly, the judicial ideology of the revolutionary base areas emphasized the role of the judicial organs in consolidating the revolutionary regime and maintaining the order of the people's democratic dictatorship, and vigorously promoted the popularization of justice. Thus, the system of final appeal of the second instance was a new attempt to establish the court-level system in the period of the new democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the Provisional Organizational Regulations of the People's Court in 1951 stipulated that individual cases should be subject to the system of final appeal of the third instance. In 1954, the Organic Law of the People's Court clearly stipulated that all cases should be subject to the system of final appeal of the second instance. And continues to date.
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the former Soviet Union's law and the judicial system, including the court trial level system, have produced a sample effect on our country's construction of the socialist court trial level system in five aspects. One is to deny the old court system completely, the other is to establish the nature and tasks of the people's court, the third is to set up the trial level, and the fourth is to divide the functions of the court trial level. At the same time, the ancient Chinese judicial tradition does not have a strict sense of the trial level system, unlimited trial level, how many levels of administrative organs have the level of trial, the parties can be grievances for direct prosecution to the highest final adjudicator. The system of retrial is positioned at the end of the second instance, and the system of retrial is the same as the system of retrial, which is different from the system of the third instance in foreign countries. State depends on the following factors: the differentiation of social structure, the cultural tradition of rights, the mode of legal thinking and the concept of due process.
Chapter Four, the perfection of the trial-level system of Chinese courts. This chapter mainly discusses the motive force, the basic point and the frame of perfection of the trial-level system of Chinese courts. Fourthly, the competition of the judicial system is the formation of the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics. Therefore, how to ensure the law rather than other standards through the corresponding arrangement of the court trial system has become the fundamental logic to solve the conflict of rights and interests, and has become a theoretical and practical proposition that must be answered.
The motive power of perfecting the current court trial level system determines that the choice of the goal of the court trial level system is the priority of formal rationality rather than substantive rationality. This requires not only a correct understanding of the relationship between formal rationality and substantive rationality, but also a full understanding of the judicial significance of the priority of formal rationality. First, it safeguards the law. The judicial significance of the above three aspects can be summarized as strengthening the trust of social members in judicial trials and realizing the social control function of the court trial system more fully. The grade system should be perfected in accordance with this line of thought, and the system of first instance final adjudication should be implemented in small summary disputes, so that the input of judicial costs is compatible with the complexity and legal significance of the cases. The court of third instance can not enter the final procedure of third instance until the case is evaluated. In addition, the system of second instance should still be applied to other cases, so as to realize the expectation of the system of third instance, and improve the retrial system, realize the transformation from "unlimited retrial" to "limited retrial", and effectively safeguard the res judicata and judicial authority of judicial decisions. At the same time, we should pay attention to handling well the judicial ideology and judicial technology, deepening the rule of law and simplifying the rule of law, the relationship between judicial resources and judicial efficiency, and reasonably divide the trial functions of the four-level courts: grass-roots courts are responsible for hearing cases of first instance, and intermediate courts are responsible for trial.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926.2

【相似文献】