法院審級制度研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-12 15:34
【摘要】：法院審級制度改革是社會主義司法制度的自我完善與發(fā)展。法院審級制度是司法制度的重要組成部分,擔負著多樣化的司法功能,并且需要在不同的價值目標之間進行平衡與取舍。目前,大陸法系與英美法系國家的法院審級制度基本是三級三審制或四級三審制,而我國和前蘇聯(lián)等社會主義國家的法院審級制度基本是四級二審制,即二審終審制。面對這一制度現(xiàn)象,筆者思考的是,這種制度差異的背后是受著什么樣的國家與社會觀念基礎的支配以及受著什么樣的司法制度歷史演進邏輯的影響?在社會轉(zhuǎn)型時期,面對當前的司法實踐困境,我國建立三審終審制度的必要性、可行性是什么?為此,本文以馬克思主義法律觀為指導,運用語義分析方法、歷史分析方法、比較分析方法、結(jié)構(gòu)分析方法、規(guī)范分析方法等多種研究方法,試圖闡釋法院審級制度的一般性理論問題,力圖能夠?qū)Ψㄔ簩徏壷贫雀母锢碚撗芯亢蛯嵺`運作提供一個基礎支點,以期豐富法院審級制度改革的理論研究,推進法院審級制度改革的理論合理性和實踐可行性。按照這一寫作思路,本文分為四章。 第一章,法院審級制度的一般考察。本章主要探討法院審級制度的原理、基本功能及功能實現(xiàn)條件,解決法院審級制度“是什么”的問題,為后續(xù)的理論探討確立一個基本的理論分析起點。法院審級制度是司法制度的重要組成部分,是指一國法律規(guī)定的審判機關在縱向組織體系上的層次劃分以及訴訟案件經(jīng)過幾級法院審理后,法院裁決立即發(fā)生法律效力的制度。法院審級制度的原理基礎可以運用美國學者羅爾斯的程序正義理論及訴訟程序運行中的公正與效率之間的價值協(xié)調(diào)理論予以闡釋。法院審級制度屬于訴訟程序范疇,按照程序正義理論,法院審級制度屬于不完善的程序正義。司法公正與司法效率都是民事訴訟程序應當促成實現(xiàn)的價值,這兩種價值可以和諧共存,但又經(jīng)常處于深沉的張力之中。受法院審判資源和當事人訴訟資源有限性的制約,存在著訴訟程序在價值層面上如何協(xié)調(diào)、平衡公正與效率之間的沖突問題。從這一意義上講,法院審級制度實質(zhì)上是司法公正與司法效率之間價值平衡的結(jié)果。 法院審級制度的顯性功能表現(xiàn)為兩方面。一方面,法院審級制度是不完全程序正義的訴訟制度,在其運行過程中,通過審級監(jiān)督使下級法院的審判活動受到上級法院和當事人及社會的監(jiān)督,使司法權(quán)的運行過程更為公開、透明,有效克服了法官對案件事實問題和法律問題“主觀擅斷”的可能性,從而在更大程度上保證了法官司法判斷的客觀性。從嚴格意義上說,法院審級制度運行過程中,每一個審級的法院都要受到這種監(jiān)督與制約。另一方面,維護法律的價值體系。法院審級制度能夠為實現(xiàn)法官司法判斷的客觀性提供保障,由此帶來的另一個功能性后果就是維護法律的價值體系。在解決權(quán)利沖突與糾紛的各種制度化方式中,通過終審法院對事實問題或法律問題的判斷排除法運行中的障礙,以維護法的價值是法院審級制度的重要功能。 法院審級制度的隱性功能是實現(xiàn)社會控制。保障法官司法判斷的客觀性和維護法的價值體系是法院審級制度的顯性功能,但這兩方面的顯性功能的深層次指向則在于實現(xiàn)司法的社會控制。法院審級制度的社會控制機理可以概括為兩個方面,即法律權(quán)威與司法行為的結(jié)合、法律價值與司法制度的結(jié)合。與立法權(quán)、行政權(quán)相比較,司法權(quán)及其表現(xiàn)形式——包括法院審級制度在內(nèi)的司法制度,實現(xiàn)社會控制的正當性基礎在于民主的局限性及司法權(quán)對民主局限性的克服。 法院審級制度的功能實現(xiàn)需要具備一定的條件。一是社會的多元結(jié)構(gòu)。二是司法的制度理性。三是司法的運行技術(shù)。四是法官的職業(yè)精神。 第二章,法院審級制度的的比較法考察。本章主要探討域外法院審級制度的歷史發(fā)展脈絡、制度觀念基礎的演變以及制度演進發(fā)展的路徑。英國、德國、法國等域外國家的法院審級制度的發(fā)展脈絡表明,中央政權(quán)司法權(quán)威的強化、案件事實問題與法律問題決定權(quán)的分離、形式化的法律推理技術(shù)、職業(yè)化的法官群體四個變量因素的出現(xiàn)推動了法院審級制度率先在西方國家得以確立并逐步形成了現(xiàn)行法院審級制度的基本面貌。在法院體系方面,基本上可以劃分為兩種類型:單一制國家法院體系與聯(lián)邦制國家法院體系。主要特點表現(xiàn)為兩方面:一是最高法院享有終審權(quán);二是法院成為中央與地方權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)關系的“調(diào)控器”。此外,各級法院的設置并不與行政區(qū)劃相對應。在審級設置方面,可以歸納出四個方面的特征:一是多元化的審級制度體系;二是第三審為法律審;三是審級功能劃分兼顧公正與效率之間的平衡;四是審級制度安排與法治的基本要求相呼應。英國等域外國家法院審級制度的歷史演進及其現(xiàn)行的制度面貌是由其深層次的觀念基礎所決定的,這一觀念基礎在于自然法思想。在其演進過程中,通過形式化法律推理、法律審與事實審的分離等相應的制度安排和技術(shù)手段,在中央政權(quán)司法權(quán)威和職業(yè)化法官群體的推動下,始終注重法院裁決的形式合理性,為社會成員提供穩(wěn)定的法律預期,并始終強調(diào)法律的自治性特征,避免法外因素對法院審級運行過程的干擾和不當影響。應該說,如果沒有建立在自然法思想基礎上的法律形式合理性與自治性觀念作為制度導向,上述國家國家法院審級制度就很難能夠獲得社會公眾的認可并成為其他國家吸收借鑒的制度樣本。 第三章,中國法院審級制度的回顧與反思。本章主要圍繞中國法院審級制度的歷史演進進行回顧與反思,以期解釋現(xiàn)行法院審級制度實行二審終審制的相關變量。晚清至民國時期確立了三審終審制,第三審確定為法律審,成為我國現(xiàn)代法院審級制度的發(fā)端。二審終審制成為新民主主義革命和社會主義革命時期法院審級制度的實際樣態(tài)。在新民主主義革命時期,在不同時期和不同革命根據(jù)地、解放區(qū),先后出現(xiàn)過二審終審制和三審終審制。在當時的歷史條件下,南京國民政府并不承認革命根據(jù)地和解放區(qū)的司法地位,不受理來自這些地區(qū)的三審案件。更為重要的是,革命根據(jù)地時期的司法意識形態(tài)強調(diào)司法機關在鞏固革命政權(quán)、維護人民民主專政秩序的作用,大力提倡推行司法的人民化、大眾化,便利人民群眾訴訟。因而,二審終審制成為新民主主義革命和社會主義革命時期法院審級制度的嶄新嘗試。建國后,1951年《人民法院暫行組織條例》規(guī)定了個別案件實行三審終審制,1954年《人民法院組織法》則明確規(guī)定所有案件實行二審終審制并延續(xù)至今。 建國后,前蘇聯(lián)法律和包括法院審級制度在內(nèi)的司法制度對我國構(gòu)建社會主義法院審級制度體系產(chǎn)生的樣本作用表現(xiàn)為五個方面。一是徹底否定舊的法院體系,二是確立人民法院的性質(zhì)與任務,三是審級設置,四是法院審級職能劃分,五是對終審判決既判力的認識。同時,中國古代司法傳統(tǒng)并不存在嚴格意義上的審級制度,無限審級,有多少級的行政機構(gòu)就有多少級的審級層次,當事人可以冤情為由直訴到最高終審裁決者。上述因素的存在,使我國現(xiàn)行的法院審級制度定位在二審終審制,與之并駕齊驅(qū)的則是再審制度,從而與域外國家法院審級制度以三審終審制為原則,以再審制度為例外形成了制度差異。通過本文第二章和第三章的分析,在一定意義上,可以看出一個國家法院審級制度的實際樣態(tài)取決于以下幾方面的因素。一是社會結(jié)構(gòu)分化,二是權(quán)利文化傳統(tǒng),三是法律思維方式,四是正當程序觀念。 第四章,中國法院審級制度的完善。本章主要是圍繞著中國法院審級制度的完善動力、完善基點、完善框架進行探討。中國法院審級制度的完善動力在于:一是現(xiàn)行法院審級制度的功能缺陷,二是公民權(quán)利訴求能力的提升,三是全球化時代的司法制度競爭,四是中國特色社會主義法律體系的形成。因此,如何通過相應的法院審級制度安排確保法律而不是其他標準成為解決權(quán)利與利益沖突的根本邏輯,已然成為必須回答的理論與實踐命題。 現(xiàn)行法院審級制度的完善動力決定了法院審級制度運行目標的選擇是形式合理性優(yōu)先而不是實質(zhì)合理性優(yōu)先,這既需要正確認識形式合理性與實質(zhì)合理性的關系形態(tài),更要充分認識到形式合理性優(yōu)先的司法意義,一是維護了法律的權(quán)威;二是為社會成員的社會行為提供了理性預期;三是為公民權(quán)利的維護與發(fā)展提供了制度空間。上述三方面的司法意義可以概括為增強社會成員對司法審判的信任,更為充分地實現(xiàn)法院審級制度的社會控制功能。為此,現(xiàn)行法院審級制度應按照這一思路進行完善;小額簡易糾紛實行一審終審制,使司法成本的投入與案件的復雜程度和法律意義相適應。其他糾紛以二審終審制為原則,以三審終審制為例外,即只有少數(shù)對于法律統(tǒng)一適用和法律解釋具有重要意義的案件,在三審法院進行評估后才能進入三審終審程序,除此之外的其他案件仍應適用二審終審制,以此實現(xiàn)三審終審制的制度預期,并完善再審制度,實現(xiàn)從“無限再審”到“有限再審”的轉(zhuǎn)變,切實維護司法裁決的既判力和司法權(quán)威。與此同時,應注重處理好司法意識形態(tài)與司法技術(shù)、深化法治與簡化法治、審判資源與司法效益之間的關系,并合理劃分四級法院的審級職能:基層法院負責審理一審案件,中級法院負責審理二審案件和一審案件,高級法院負責審理二審案件和三審案件,最高人民法院僅負責審理三審案件。 在本文結(jié)語部分,筆者認為,為了確保法院審級制度的完善能夠收到預期成效,對于法院審級制度完善過程中發(fā)生重要影響的相關因素進行梳理,從而為法院審級制度改革注入更多的理性思考,無疑是十分必要的。擇其要者,當前法院審級制度重構(gòu)需要對以下五個方面的相關要素給予足夠的關注。一是正確認識法院審級制度所承載的制度功能,二是引導社會民眾和法官群體養(yǎng)成形式化法律意識和法律思維,三是充分考慮社會公眾對法院審級制度改革成本的承受能力,四是合理構(gòu)建上下級法院審判業(yè)務關系,五是提升法官群體的社會公信力。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.2
本文編號：2239466
[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.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.2
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 周玉華;;論法官良知的培育和維系[J];人民司法;2011年03期
2 ;[J];;年期
3 ;[J];;年期
4 ;[J];;年期
5 ;[J];;年期
6 ;[J];;年期
7 ;[J];;年期
8 ;[J];;年期
9 ;[J];;年期
10 ;[J];;年期
相關會議論文 前7條
1 吉愛紅;;談法官的職業(yè)道德[A];中國管理科學文獻[C];2008年
2 白清;張俊者;;志恢弘而道中庸——專業(yè)與平民思維的再造之路[A];全國法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學術(shù)討論會論文集[C];2011年
3 何鍵;凌蔚;;從缺位、越位到就位——雙重視角下合議庭負責制之重構(gòu)[A];全國法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學術(shù)討論會論文集[C];2011年
4 劉璇;;加強法院文化建設推進法官職業(yè)化進程[A];2003年度全省法院“法官職業(yè)化建設理論與實踐”研討會論文專輯[C];2003年
5 陶學仁;段春山;;實施法官助理制度推動法官職業(yè)化建設[A];2003年度全省法院“法官職業(yè)化建設理論與實踐”研討會論文專輯[C];2003年
6 石先鈺;;加強法官道德建設是法官職業(yè)化的必然要求[A];中國倫理學三十年——中國倫理學會第七次全國會員代表大會暨學術(shù)討論會論文匯編[C];2009年
7 侯建英;;臺灣司法實務之改革掠影[A];當代法學論壇（二０一一年第三輯）[C];2011年
相關重要報紙文章 前10條
1 本報記者 沈榮 張寬明;當代基層法官群體審判經(jīng)驗的集中展現(xiàn)[N];人民法院報;2010年
2 遼寧省撫順市中級人民法院院長 李志良;踐行司法核心價值觀 打造雷鋒式法官群體[N];人民法院報;2010年
3 清華大學法學院 張建偉;司法廉潔：苛責也是鞭策[N];人民法院報;2011年
4 劉振厚;法官的心態(tài)[N];學習時報;2006年
5 漣水縣人民法院 吳秀榮 周從華;淺談審判領域內(nèi)賄賂現(xiàn)象的成因及其預防[N];中華新聞報;2007年
6 張水萍 陳星言;構(gòu)筑先進法官群體[N];人民法院報;2003年
7 本報記者 趙興武 本報通訊員 崔民;新起點上的躍升[N];人民法院報;2006年
8 黃建華 邱宗信;鑄就公正的天平[N];中國企業(yè)報;2003年
9 記者 王書林 通訊員 劉瓊 記者 婁銀生 林忠明;新疆四個堅持規(guī)范行政審判 江蘇培養(yǎng)專家型法官群體 福建完善監(jiān)督形式形成監(jiān)督合力[N];人民法院報;2005年
10 李華;遼陽全力打造高素質(zhì)法官群體[N];人民法院報;2008年
相關博士學位論文 前6條
1 尹彥久;法院審級制度研究[D];吉林大學;2011年
2 王明新;現(xiàn)代社會中的法官[D];南京師范大學;2006年
3 代志鵬;司法判決是如何生產(chǎn)出來的[D];華東師范大學;2010年
4 李超;清末民初的審判獨立研究[D];中國政法大學;2004年
5 米勇;法官遴選制度研究[D];吉林大學;2009年
6 張振亮;大眾傳播傳者社會權(quán)利研究[D];南京大學;2011年
相關碩士學位論文 前10條
1 侯yN;法官工作倦怠及其與相關因素的關系[D];河南大學;2006年
2 瞿曉云;中國法官素質(zhì)問題初論[D];華東政法學院;2004年
3 汪文;“法官”探究[D];蘇州大學;2007年
4 唐瑛;法官職業(yè)倫理研究[D];吉林大學;2008年
5 張玉潔;法官權(quán)益保障的法理思考[D];湖南大學;2009年
6 段寶忠;漢武帝時期法官初探[D];安徽大學;2007年
7 程良映;轉(zhuǎn)型期法官角色的調(diào)整探討[D];華中師范大學;2004年
8 任超;西歐中世紀法律職業(yè)階層的興起[D];華東政法學院;2003年
9 于建平;試論法官員額制度[D];山東大學;2006年
10 王麗;民國時期的廣東司法官群體研究（1927-1938年）[D];暨南大學;2008年
，本文編號：2239466
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/gongjianfalunwen/2239466.html
教材專著
