發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-02 12:15

【摘要】：近年來，有關(guān)司法不公的案例屢屢出現(xiàn)于報(bào)紙、網(wǎng)絡(luò)，引發(fā)了廣大人民群眾對(duì)司法公正的質(zhì)疑。之所有出現(xiàn)這種局面，固然與媒體的放大效應(yīng)有很大關(guān)系，但也反映出了在司法實(shí)踐中“關(guān)系案”、“人情案”仍然存在，法官與擔(dān)任律師的親屬也非常容易出現(xiàn)利益輸送。在這種情況下，最高人民法院為了保障司法公正，增強(qiáng)司法的公信力，2011年2月10日印發(fā)了《最高人民法院關(guān)于對(duì)配偶子女從事律師職業(yè)的法院領(lǐng)導(dǎo)干部和審判法官實(shí)行任職回避的規(guī)定》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱《規(guī)定》）的通知，要求人民法院領(lǐng)導(dǎo)干部和審判、執(zhí)行崗位的法官，其配偶、子女在其任職的法院轄區(qū)內(nèi)從事律師職業(yè)的，應(yīng)當(dāng)實(shí)行任職回避，即調(diào)離審判崗位，，實(shí)行“單方退出”。 這一規(guī)定雖然在短時(shí)期內(nèi)取得了一定的效果，但在涉及法律職業(yè)的從業(yè)限制問題上，這一規(guī)定的合法性、規(guī)范性、正當(dāng)性還有待商榷。法官任職回避的“單方退出機(jī)制”是我國司法實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域中出現(xiàn)的新問題，對(duì)這一問題目前學(xué)界還沒有比較系統(tǒng)規(guī)范的研究，只有一些媒體發(fā)表了短評(píng)，本文從法理方面對(duì)這一問題進(jìn)行了初步的探究與反思，提出了一些替代性解決方案。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the cases of judicial injustice appear frequently in newspapers and internet, which arouse people's doubts about judicial justice. All this situation is related to the amplification effect of the media, but it also reflects the "relationship case" in judicial practice, and the "human favor case" still exists, and it is very easy for the judge and the relatives who serve as lawyers to convey the interests. Under such circumstances, the Supreme people's Court, in order to safeguard judicial justice and enhance the credibility of the judiciary, On February 10, 2011, the Supreme people's Court issued a notice on disqualification from office (hereinafter referred to as "regulations") of the leading cadres and trial judges of the court whose spouses and children are engaged in the profession of lawyers. Those who require the people's court to lead cadres and judges, their spouses and children who are engaged in the profession of lawyers in the jurisdiction of the court in which they serve shall withdraw from their positions of office, that is, they shall be transferred out of their judicial posts and "unilaterally withdrawn". Although this stipulation has achieved certain effect in a short period of time, the legality, standardization and legitimacy of this stipulation are still open to question. The "unilateral withdrawal mechanism" of judges' recusal from office is a new problem in the field of judicial practice in China. At present, there is no systematic and normative study on this issue in academic circles. Only some media have published short comments. This paper makes a preliminary exploration and reflection on this problem from the point of view of jurisprudence, and puts forward some alternative solutions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 鞏富文;中國古代法官責(zé)任制度的基本內(nèi)容與現(xiàn)實(shí)借鑒[J];中國法學(xué);2002年04期

本文編號(hào)：2305982