《全国人大常委会关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》操作性研究

发布时间：2018-05-11 00:29

本文选题：全国人大常委会关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定 + 操作性　；参考：《西南政法大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 随着现代社会经济和科学技术的进步，涉及科技问题的证据在诉讼中占有的比例越来越重，因此司法鉴定的作用越来越重要。但是由于我国司法鉴定制度规定的不完善，导致司法实践中，多头鉴定，重复鉴定现象十分严重，这种状况不符合我国的法治建设要求，同时也损害了当事人的合法权益。为了更好的管理司法鉴定工作，第十届全国人大第十四次会议通过了常委会《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》(下称《决定》)。这对我国的司法鉴定的有效进行提供了法律上的支持。但同时我们也要看到该决定不完善的地方，进而思考如何改善。相较于其他论著的观点，本文作者另选角度，从法律的操作性来探讨《决定》的得失，然后思考如何改进《决定》的可操作性，以最终达到立法者的初衷。本文除了前言和结语外，共分为三个部分在前言部分，作者主要论述了关于各国司法鉴定制度的起源发展以及我国司法鉴定制度的现状，其中重点论述了我国司法鉴定制度所面临的问题，从而引出了司法鉴定制度改革的必要性和迫切性，即《决定》的出台背景。在第一部分中，作者论述的是《决定》的可操作性。在探讨《决定》可操作性之前，作者首先解释了操作性的概念、与原则性的关系以及可操作性与不可操作性的区分标准，在此基础上，作者开始着重论述《决定》的可操作性，对于这个问题，作者并没有逐条讨论，而是选取一些具有代表性的，具有深远意义的条文的可操作性进行分析，如《决定》明确了司法鉴定的概念和范围，确立了司法行政部门对司法鉴定的统一管理，侦查机关的鉴定机构只对内服务，审判机关和司法行政部门不得设立司法鉴定机构等内容。在第二部分，作者论述的《决定》的不可操作性。在探讨《决定》不可操作性的问题上，作者主要分为五小部分进行，首先是条文内容上的不可操作性，对于这一部分的内容，作者不仅前在第一部分中没有提到的部分条文进行了批判，同时还对此前认可操作性的条文进行了部分的批判，，在肯定其可操作性的同时，又提出了其具有部分的不可操作性，符合马克思主义的辩证认识论；第二是法律条文上的遗漏，对此，作者认为《决定》对部分重要内容未予以规定，由此造成实践中无所适从；第三是《决定》与同位法的冲突，主要是介绍《决定》与《行政许可法》的冲突，从而使《决定》在实践中无法操作；第四是《决定》在实施过程中缺乏必要的配套措施的支持，使其无法正常运转；最后，作者陈述了《决定》实际实施过程中出现的各种问题，用大量的现实材料，对《决定》的不可操作性作了自认为比较深刻的总结。第三部分，作者论述的是关于完善《决定》可操作性的建议，这也是本文的最后落脚点。首先，作者探讨了《决定》产生不可操作性的原因，主要包括以下两点：第一是关于立法方面的原因，我国制订的法律大部分都是原则性强而可操作性差，《决定》亦是如此，作者在此系统的探讨了立法方面的原因，包括立法的过于超前、脱离中国实际；借鉴外来经验与符合中国国情的关系未把握好；立法之前未多做调查研究以及缺乏整体规划思想等诸方面的原因；第二是关于《决定》的法律地位方面的问题，由于《决定》法律地位的不够，导致其与同位法冲突时无法选择的冲突；由此引出完善《决定》可操作性的建议，一是修改《决定》中的部分内容，二是制订《决定》的配套措施，三是解决与其它法律的冲突。司法鉴定制度的完善仅仅依靠《决定》的出台和实施是远远不够的，所以我们要以审慎的眼光看待《决定》的实施，思考如何弥补《决定》中的不足，以期在以后的立法和司法中予以完善，以更好的发挥司法鉴定的作用，保证诉讼效率和司法正义。
[Abstract]:With the progress of modern social economy and science and technology, the proportion of evidence involved in science and technology is becoming more and more serious in litigation. Therefore, the role of judicial identification is becoming more and more important. However, due to the imperfection of the judicial identification system in our country, it leads to the judicial practice, the phenomenon of repeated identification is very serious, this situation is not consistent. In order to better manage the judicial expertise, the fourteenth meeting of the Tenth NPC passed the decision of the Standing Committee on the management of judicial expertise (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"). This provides legal support for the effective conduct of our country's legal appraisal of the law. But at the same time, we should also see that the decision is not perfect, and then think about how to improve it. Compared with the views of other works, the author chooses the angle of the author to discuss the gains and losses of the "decision" from the operational nature of the law, and then thinks how to improve the operability of the "decision >", in order to finally reach the original intention of the legislator.
Besides preface and epilogue, this article is divided into three parts.
In the preface, the author mainly discusses the origin and development of the judicial identification system in various countries and the present situation of the system of judicial authentication in our country, which focuses on the problems faced by the system of judicial authentication in our country, which leads to the necessity and urgency of the reform of the judicial identification system, that is, the background of the introduction of the "decision".
In the first part, the author deals with the maneuverability of < Decision >. Before discussing the operability of < Decision >, the author first explained the concept of operability, the relationship with the principle and the distinction between the operability and the operability. On this basis, the author began to focus on the maneuverability of the < decision >, for this question, the author Instead of discussing one by one, it selects the operability of some representative and far-reaching provisions, such as "the decision > defines the concept and scope of judicial expertise, and establishes the unified management of judicial authentication by the administrative department of the judiciary, and the identification agencies of the investigative organs are only to the internal services, the judicial organs and the judicial administrative departments." No judicial authentication institutions shall be set up.
In the second part, the author discusses the non operable nature of the "decision >". In the discussion of the issue of "decision >", the author mainly divides into five parts. First, it is not operable in the contents of the articles. For the content of this part, the author not only criticizes some of the provisions that are not mentioned in the first part, but also is also correct. Prior to the approval of the operational provisions of the part of the criticism, in affirming its operability, and at the same time, it has put forward some of its non operable, consistent with the dialectical epistemology of Marx doctrine; second is the omission of the legal provisions, the author thinks that the "decision >" on the important content of the Department is not stipulated, thus resulting in no practice. The third is the conflict between the "decision >" and the same place law, which mainly introduces the conflict between the "decision >" and the administrative licensing law, thus making the < Decision > inoperable in practice; the fourth is the lack of necessary supporting measures in the process of implementation, so that it can not operate normally; finally, the author states the "decision >" in the actual implementation process. A variety of problems that arise, with a large number of practical materials, on the "decision" of the operability of a self concluded that a more profound summary.
In the third part, the author discusses the proposal to improve the maneuverability of the "decision >", which is the final point of this article. First, the author discusses the reasons for the non operability of the "decision >", mainly including the following two points: first, the reasons for the legislative aspects, and the majority of the laws in our country are very principled and poor operable. "Decision >" is also the case. The author has discussed the legislative reasons in this system, including legislation too advanced, divorced from China's reality; the relationship between foreign experience and China's national conditions is not well understood; the reasons for no investigation and lack of overall planning before the legislation are not done; and second is about < Decision > > The problem of legal status, due to the lack of legal status, leads to the conflict that can not be chosen in the conflict with the law of the same place; thus leads to the suggestion to improve the maneuverability of the "decision >", one is to modify part of the content of the "decision >", the two is to set up the supporting measures of the "decision >", and the three is to resolve the conflict with other laws.
The perfection of the judicial appraisal system only depends on the introduction and implementation of the "decision >" is far from enough. Therefore, we should look at the implementation of the "decision" with a prudent view and think about how to make up for the shortcomings in the decision in order to improve the future legislation and judicature so as to give full play to the role of judicial expertise and to ensure the efficiency of the lawsuit and the judicial correctness. Righteousness.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D926;D918.9

【参考文献】