论刑事判决承认

发布时间：2018-08-18 10:49

【摘要】：时下,由于全球化的不断发展,国与国之间的交往变得日益频繁和便利,伴随这样的背景,涉外性刑事犯罪也日益突出,逐渐成为一大国际公害。跨国性犯罪因为其本身具有的复杂性特点,在司法实践中比较难以侦破,因此各国和各地区对该种犯罪的关注程度也在日渐攀升。与此同时,刑事管辖权的问题亦成为一个国际社会广泛关注的热点,刑事管辖权的冲突问题凸显,关于外国刑事判决效力的种种问题便产生了。对外国刑事判决的承认,即对其效力的一种认可,是二战以后在欧洲国家之间兴起的一种国际刑事司法合作形式。但刑事判决承认的范围并不仅仅局限于各国之间刑事判决的承认,还包括一国的各法域之间、国际刑事审判机构与国家之间的刑事判决承认。一国对于其国之外的刑事判决,若是采取不予承认的态度,便会带来以下问题。举例说明,A国的居民甲在B国故意伤人,B国对该罪行具有刑事管辖权,其司法机构对甲的罪行予以控告和追诉,判处刑罚并予以执行。甲在服刑之后回到A国,而A国对他的罪行同样具有刑事管辖权,但由于A国并不承认外国刑事判决的效力,其司法机构便会按照司法程序追究甲的刑事责任。于甲而言,他已经受到了法律的制裁并遭受了牢狱之灾,A国的再次追诉是否属于对其人权的侵犯。于A国而言,该举是否与一事不再理、一罪不二罚等原则背道而驰。从大的角度考虑,这是否是对司法资源的一种不必要浪费,以上均是值得思考的问题。一国若承认外国的刑事判决,则存在一个不可避免的难题。各国的刑事法律规定各有特点、或有不同,对同样的罪行或者案件情况,处理方式则是不同的。譬如对于时效的规定,就会导致有的犯罪分子可以免除处罚,而有的则难逃法律的制裁。而在具体的承认过程中,对于在国外已经执行的刑罚应当作何处理,如何进行刑期的计算与转换,也是必须要考虑的重要内容。因此,对各国相关刑事法律的差异进行探讨并提出行之有效的对策,在刑事判决的承认的研究中是必不可少的。在对刑事判决进行承认以后,刑事判决的执行、引渡、被判刑人的移管等一系列的后续问题便会应运而生,本文也将会对以上问题有所涉及。在我国,囿于形式上的国家主权壁垒,1997年《刑法》实施以前,我国在这方面相当保守,这与当时我国刑事法制实践的开放性不突出有关。后来随着我国对外开放程度的加深,国际刑事司法协助活动得到了不断的发展,我国开始与一些国家签订诸如移管被判刑人之类的条约,顺应实践的发展,我国《刑法》亦在第10条中对外国刑事判决的承认进行了相应的规制。在学术界,相关理论的研究也随之掀起了一个高潮,本文拟在此基础上,通过对世界各国刑事判决立法现状的分析,从理论的角度与立法的模式来对刑事判决承认进行介绍,并将区际刑事判决的承认也纳入这一研究范围,从国际与区际两个方面对我国《刑法》第10条提出立法建议。本文分四部分,除引言外,共三万字有余。主要内容如下:第一部分,刑事判决承认的概述。从刑事判决承认的定义和范围界定来切入,进而分析承认所引起的法律后果,并对背后的相关刑事法律制度差异进行研究,从概念本身和所涉及的一系列量刑、刑事责任等问题来对本文的基础制度进行交代。第二部分,刑事判决承认的立法现状与理论解析,本部分对刑事判决承认的历史发展进行了阐述,并剖析了其深层次的法理基础,是本篇论文的理论核心。在对世界诸国有关刑事判决承认的规定进行分析后,提出了四种立法模式的划分,以期更好地全面把握刑事判决承认的立法现状,为第四部分中我国立法的修改建议提供基础理论与参考资料。第三部分,区际刑事判决承认的比较研究,基于前述对刑事判决承认类型的划分,在此重点论述区际刑事判决承认的问题。从大陆与港澳台刑事管辖权的冲突入手,分析两岸三地刑事判决承认的基础,对外国不同法域之间的判决承认进行介绍,如美国、瑞士、英国等。通过对中外区际刑事判决的承认进行比较与借鉴,为将区际刑事判决承认纳入我国立法提供相关素材。第四部分,我国《刑法》第10条及其改进,在前文论述的基础上,结合当今国际大背景,对我国《刑法》第10条进行全面的解剖与分析,讨论我国当前的立法模式是否合理,试着在检讨当前立法模式的前提下,提出立法模式的转换与改进相关法律制度的建议,论述港澳台地区与大陆刑事判决承认的法制建构,最终提出一个修改后的刑法第十条的立法建议。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, with the continuous development of globalization, exchanges between countries have become increasingly frequent and convenient. Accompanied by this background, foreign-related criminal offences have become increasingly prominent, and gradually become a major international hazard. At the same time, the issue of criminal jurisdiction has become a hot topic of international concern. The conflict of criminal jurisdiction has become prominent. Various problems concerning the validity of foreign criminal judgments have arisen. Recognition of foreign criminal judgments, i.e. recognition of their validity, was a recognition of World War II. However, the scope of recognition of criminal judgments is not limited to the recognition of criminal judgments between countries, but also includes the recognition of criminal judgments between jurisdictions of a country, international criminal judicial organs and countries. Taking an attitude of non-recognition raises the following problems. For example, country A intentionally injures people in country B, and country B has criminal jurisdiction over the crime. Its judicial organs charge and prosecute the crime of country A, sentence and execution. A returns to country A after serving his sentence, and country A has criminal jurisdiction over his crime. However, because State A does not recognize the validity of foreign criminal judgments, its judiciary will pursue the criminal responsibility of State A in accordance with judicial procedures. As for State A, he has been punished by law and suffered from prison, whether the prosecution of State A belongs to the violation of his human rights again. As for State A, whether the case is unreasonable is no more than a crime. The principle of punishment runs counter to each other. Whether this is an unnecessary waste of judicial resources from a large point of view is worth considering. If a country recognizes foreign criminal judgments, there is an unavoidable problem. For example, the prescription will lead to some criminals can be exempted from punishment, and some can not escape legal sanctions. And in the process of specific recognition, what should be done to the penalties already executed abroad, how to calculate and convert the prison term, is also an important content to be considered. Therefore, it is indispensable to discuss the differences of relevant criminal laws in different countries and put forward effective countermeasures in the study of recognition of criminal judgments. After the recognition of criminal judgments, a series of follow-up problems will arise, such as the execution of criminal judgments, extradition, the transfer of the sentenced person and so on. In China, confined to formal barriers to state sovereignty, China was quite conservative in this respect before the implementation of the Criminal Law in 1997, which was related to the fact that the practice of criminal law in China was not prominent. Later, with the deepening of China's opening to the outside world, international criminal judicial assistance activities have been continuously developed and China opened up. In accordance with the development of practice, China's Criminal Law has also regulated the recognition of foreign criminal judgments in Article 10. In the academic circles, the relevant theoretical research has also set off a climax. On this basis, this paper intends to establish criminal judgments in various countries of the world. This paper introduces the recognition of criminal judgment from the angle of theory and the mode of legislation, and brings the recognition of interregional criminal judgment into the scope of this study. It puts forward legislative suggestions for Article 10 of the Criminal Law of China from the international and interregional aspects. The first part is an overview of the recognition of criminal judgments. Starting from the definition and scope of the recognition of criminal judgments, this paper analyzes the legal consequences caused by the recognition, and studies the differences of the relevant criminal legal systems behind the recognition, and carries out the basic system of this article from the concept itself and a series of sentencing, criminal responsibility and other issues involved. The second part, the legislative status and theoretical analysis of the recognition of criminal judgments, this part of the history of the recognition of criminal judgments described, and analyzed its deep-seated legal basis, is the theoretical core of this paper. After the analysis of the provisions of the world on the recognition of criminal judgments, put forward four legislative models. The third part, the comparative study of the recognition of interregional criminal judgments, based on the above classification of the types of recognition of criminal judgments, focuses on the question of recognition of interregional criminal judgments. Starting from the conflict of criminal jurisdiction between Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, this paper analyzes the basis of the recognition of criminal judgments in the three places on both sides of the Strait, and introduces the recognition of criminal judgments between different foreign jurisdictions, such as the United States, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In the fourth part, on the basis of the previous discussion and in the light of the current international background, the article 10 of the Criminal Law of China is dissected and analyzed comprehensively to discuss whether the current legislative mode in China is reasonable. On the premise of reviewing the current legislative mode, the author tries to put forward the transformation and improvement of the legislative mode. Suggestions on improving the relevant legal system are given to discuss the legal construction of the recognition of criminal judgments in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan and the mainland. Finally, a legislative suggestion on the amended Article 10 of the Criminal Law is put forward.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】