發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-15 11:17

  本文選題：司法權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：社會權(quán)力　出處：《天津商業(yè)大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：司法權(quán)的權(quán)力本質(zhì)是國家權(quán)力，無論從司法權(quán)的功能來看，還是從司法權(quán)的價(jià)值取向來看，司法權(quán)的本質(zhì)屬性都是一種區(qū)別于社會權(quán)力的公共權(quán)力，也即國家權(quán)力。近些年來，伴隨司法改革的不斷深化，學(xué)術(shù)界對司法社會化、司法去政治化、司法去國家化、社會本位司法的討論逐漸多了起來。有學(xué)者認(rèn)為司法權(quán)應(yīng)由人民掌握，屬人民自治范疇。周永坤教授指出：“從司法權(quán)的歸屬來看，司法權(quán)是社會權(quán)力，或主要屬社會權(quán)力。還有學(xué)者認(rèn)為司法權(quán)是“裁判權(quán)”，并區(qū)別于前兩種政治意義上的國家權(quán)力，作為第三種權(quán)力的裁判權(quán)的權(quán)力屬性依賴于社會權(quán)力，屬于社會性權(quán)力而非國家權(quán)力。無論如何界定司法權(quán)的本質(zhì)，都是將司法理解為廣義的解決糾紛。該派學(xué)說的特點(diǎn)是將訴訟和一些社會組織的活動都看作司法活動筆者把這些將司法權(quán)本質(zhì)歸為社會性的理論觀點(diǎn)統(tǒng)稱為“司法權(quán)社會權(quán)力”論。將司法權(quán)的本質(zhì)屬性理解為社會性的理論存在以下理論誤區(qū)：1、混淆了公共權(quán)力和社會權(quán)力，，將政治理論中的“國家權(quán)力來源于人民”直接理解國家權(quán)力就是人民權(quán)力或社會權(quán)力，進(jìn)而認(rèn)為一切國家的權(quán)力都應(yīng)該回歸社會。2、混淆了司法權(quán)的功能屬性和本質(zhì)屬性，將司法權(quán)的價(jià)值取向和社會公共職能等同于司法權(quán)的權(quán)力本質(zhì)。中國社會正處在一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)型期，司法改革也是如此，司法改革受制于社會系統(tǒng)其他要素的轉(zhuǎn)型進(jìn)程的制約和影響。由于受復(fù)雜多變環(huán)境的影響，為了保障司法改革的穩(wěn)定性、連續(xù)性和實(shí)效性，對司法權(quán)本質(zhì)的理性認(rèn)識關(guān)乎司法權(quán)的獨(dú)立和司法權(quán)威的穩(wěn)定性。認(rèn)識司法權(quán)的本質(zhì)屬性的意義在于，能否正確認(rèn)識法的本質(zhì)，直接決定著法學(xué)研究和法制建設(shè)的根本方向。因此，研究與當(dāng)今社會轉(zhuǎn)型內(nèi)在需求相適應(yīng)的司法權(quán)運(yùn)行結(jié)構(gòu)，必須清楚認(rèn)識司法權(quán)的本質(zhì)屬性這一理論前提，進(jìn)而理性處理司法權(quán)與社會權(quán)力的關(guān)系，調(diào)整司法權(quán)與其他國家權(quán)力的關(guān)系。從而避免在改革的過程中出現(xiàn)制度漏洞、制度抵牾，避免新舊制度過度的激進(jìn)性。
[Abstract]:The essence of judicial power is state power. Whether from the function of judicial power or from the value orientation of judicial power, the essential attribute of judicial power is a kind of public power, that is, state power, which is different from social power. With the deepening of judicial reform, there is a growing discussion of judicial socialization, judicial depoliticization, judicial de-nationalization, and society-based justice in academic circles. Some scholars believe that judicial power should be controlled by the people. It belongs to the category of people's autonomy. Professor Zhou Yongkun pointed out: "from the perspective of the attribution of judicial power, judicial power is social power, or is mainly social power." there are scholars who believe that judicial power is "adjudicative power", which is different from the state power in the first two political senses. As the third kind of power, the power attribute of the adjudicative power depends on the social power, which belongs to the social power rather than the state power. The characteristic of this school of thought is that litigation and the activities of some social organizations are regarded as judicial activities. The theory that the nature of judicial power is understood as social has the following theoretical misunderstanding: 1, which confuses public power with social power. The political theory that "state power originates from the people" directly understands that state power is the power of the people or the power of society, and further holds that the power of all countries should return to society, which confuses the functional and essential attributes of judicial power. The value orientation of judicial power and the social public function are equated with the power essence of judicial power. Chinese society is in a transition period, and so is judicial reform. Judicial reform is restricted and influenced by the transformation process of other elements of the social system. Because of the influence of complex and changeable environment, in order to guarantee the stability, continuity and effectiveness of judicial reform, The rational understanding of the nature of judicial power is related to the independence of judicial power and the stability of judicial authority. Therefore, to study the running structure of judicial power in accordance with the internal needs of the transformation of society today, we must clearly understand the theoretical premise of the essential attribute of judicial power. Then we can rationally handle the relationship between judicial power and social power, adjust the relationship between judicial power and the power of other countries, so as to avoid the system loopholes in the process of reform, system contradiction, and avoid the excessive radicalization of new and old systems.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津商業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡玉鴻;論馬克思主義的司法平等觀[J];法學(xué);2003年02期

2 劉練軍;;司法權(quán)在何種意義上不存在[J];法治研究;2007年06期

3 周永坤;;中國司法概念史研究[J];法治研究;2011年04期

4 J.威爾遜,羅述勇;功能分析介紹[J];國外社會科學(xué);1986年10期

5 吳春雷;司法權(quán)的人民化建構(gòu)研究[J];河北法學(xué);2005年11期

6 陳文興;;論司法權(quán)國家化——以治理司法權(quán)地方化為視角[J];河北法學(xué);2007年09期

7 方園;申來津;;國家權(quán)力與社會權(quán)力的關(guān)聯(lián)與讓渡[J];湖北經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會科學(xué)版);2007年06期

8 周永坤;司法權(quán)的性質(zhì)與司法改革戰(zhàn)略[J];金陵法律評論;2003年02期

9 胡玉鴻;馬克思恩格斯論司法獨(dú)立[J];法學(xué)研究;2002年01期

10 韓鋼;;司法權(quán)基本屬性解析[J];寧波大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文科學(xué)版);2011年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 莫湘益;司法權(quán)的法理分析[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2002年

2 逄志龍;論司法權(quán)的社會性[D];蘇州大學(xué);2004年

3 陳長泉;法理學(xué)視野中的社會權(quán)力[D];湘潭大學(xué);2008年

本文編號：1615792