發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-24 18:06

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 檢察權(quán) 行政 司法 法律監(jiān)督　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：自檢察權(quán)誕生以來(lái),其性質(zhì)一直是學(xué)界爭(zhēng)論許久又莫衷一是的話題。隨著中國(guó)司法體制改革的逐步深入推進(jìn),對(duì)中國(guó)檢察權(quán)屬性與定位的討論也逐漸成為了一個(gè)理論熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。中國(guó)檢察權(quán)的制度設(shè)計(jì)與西方傳統(tǒng)檢察權(quán)有諸多不同,因而招致了不少學(xué)者的質(zhì)疑。由于我國(guó)憲法將檢察權(quán)作為與行政權(quán)、審判權(quán)平行并列的一項(xiàng)獨(dú)立國(guó)家權(quán)力,因此,中國(guó)檢察制度的建構(gòu),不僅關(guān)系到司法與訴訟領(lǐng)域本身,而且是關(guān)乎整個(gè)中國(guó)憲政體系重構(gòu)的重大問(wèn)題。因此有必要對(duì)中國(guó)檢察權(quán)的屬性與定位作理性探討,以為中國(guó)檢察制度未來(lái)的發(fā)展確定走向。 本文中,筆者首先對(duì)檢察權(quán)產(chǎn)生和起源的歷史進(jìn)行了考察,從而了解檢察權(quán)產(chǎn)生的內(nèi)在動(dòng)因和歷史意義,以探明其本來(lái)面貌�，F(xiàn)代檢察權(quán)起源于法國(guó),其制度目的是在于改革糾問(wèn)式訴訟程序,制約法官權(quán)力,在被其他國(guó)家移植后又被賦予了“法律守護(hù)人”、“公益代表人”等新的角色,其職責(zé)逐漸走出公訴領(lǐng)域,向著監(jiān)督公權(quán)、守護(hù)法治等更為廣闊的領(lǐng)域拓展。通過(guò)對(duì)大陸法系、英美法系、蘇聯(lián)俄羅斯等域外檢察模式的全方位比較與考察,筆者認(rèn)為,各國(guó)檢察權(quán)雖然在屬性定位、職權(quán)配置等方面各有不同,但其都具有監(jiān)督制約國(guó)家權(quán)力的共通屬性,檢察機(jī)關(guān)在國(guó)家權(quán)力體系中的獨(dú)立性日益加強(qiáng),監(jiān)督權(quán)能逐步擴(kuò)大,已成為世界各國(guó)檢察權(quán)發(fā)展的共同趨勢(shì)。而在對(duì)中國(guó)檢察權(quán)歷史演變過(guò)程的考察中可以看出,新中國(guó)檢察制度借鑒吸收了西方大陸法系、蘇聯(lián)社會(huì)主義法制、中國(guó)古代監(jiān)察制度傳統(tǒng)等多重經(jīng)驗(yàn),從其建立開始就以查處干部違法亂紀(jì)為重點(diǎn),以法律監(jiān)督為其核心職能,在制度設(shè)計(jì)與定位上與當(dāng)代檢察權(quán)在本質(zhì)上是共通的。 對(duì)一項(xiàng)國(guó)家權(quán)力的認(rèn)識(shí)離不開對(duì)其自身屬性的分析,目前對(duì)中國(guó)檢察權(quán)性質(zhì)認(rèn)識(shí)較為普遍的有行政權(quán)說(shuō)、司法權(quán)說(shuō)、雙重屬性說(shuō)與法律監(jiān)督權(quán)說(shuō)四種。筆者對(duì)上述四種學(xué)說(shuō)進(jìn)行了逐一評(píng)析后認(rèn)為中國(guó)檢察權(quán)應(yīng)定性為兼具司法屬性的特殊行政權(quán),行政性是其本質(zhì)屬性。但對(duì)中國(guó)檢察權(quán)的定位不能僅僅依據(jù)國(guó)家權(quán)力屬性的劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn),還必須充分考量該權(quán)力在國(guó)家憲政體制中的法理正當(dāng)性與其現(xiàn)實(shí)合理性,中國(guó)檢察權(quán)在監(jiān)督制約公權(quán)力運(yùn)行、保障法律統(tǒng)一正確實(shí)施、保護(hù)社會(huì)公共利益與公民權(quán)利等方面體現(xiàn)出巨大的功能和價(jià)值。其每一項(xiàng)權(quán)能都履行著對(duì)國(guó)家權(quán)力監(jiān)督制約的職責(zé),是檢察機(jī)關(guān)整體監(jiān)督職能的具體外化。檢察權(quán)應(yīng)當(dāng)成為一項(xiàng)獨(dú)立的國(guó)家權(quán)力,我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的人民檢察制度建構(gòu)是符合我國(guó)國(guó)情的正確選擇。
[Abstract]:Since the birth of procuratorial power, the nature of procuratorial power has been a subject of debate and disagreement in academic circles for a long time. With the deepening of the reform of China's judicial system, The discussion on the nature and orientation of procuratorial power in China has gradually become a hot issue in theory. The institutional design of procuratorial power in China is different from that of the traditional procuratorial power in the West. As the procuratorial power is regarded as an independent state power parallel to the administrative power and the judicial power, therefore, the construction of China's procuratorial system is not only related to the field of judicature and litigation itself. Therefore, it is necessary to make a rational discussion on the attribute and orientation of the procuratorial power in China in order to determine the direction of the future development of the procuratorial system in China. In this paper, the author first investigates the history of the emergence and origin of procuratorial power, so as to understand the intrinsic motivation and historical significance of the emergence of procuratorial power, in order to find out its original appearance. The modern procuratorial power originates from France. The purpose of its system is to reform the inquisitorial procedure, restrict the power of judges, and be endowed with new roles such as "guardian of law" and "representative of public good" after being transplanted by other countries, whose duties gradually go out of the field of public prosecution and turn to supervision of public power. Based on the omni-directional comparison and investigation of the procuratorial modes of the continental law system, the common law system, the Soviet Union and Russia, the author believes that the prosecutorial power of various countries is located in the attribute, The allocation of functions and powers are different, but they all have the common attribute of supervising and restricting the state power. The procuratorial organs' independence in the system of state power is strengthened day by day, and the supervisory power can be expanded step by step. It has become a common trend in the development of procuratorial power all over the world, and from the investigation of the historical evolution of procuratorial power in China, it can be seen that the procuratorial system of New China has absorbed the western continental law system and the socialist legal system of the Soviet Union. From the beginning of its establishment, China's ancient supervisory system tradition focused on investigating and punishing cadres for violating the law and discipline, and took legal supervision as its core function. In terms of system design and orientation, the system design and positioning are in common with contemporary procuratorial power in essence. The understanding of a state power can not be separated from the analysis of its own attributes. At present, there are the theories of executive power, judicial power, and judicial power, which are relatively common in understanding the nature of procuratorial power in China. The author analyzes the four theories one by one and concludes that the procuratorial power in China should be characterized as a special administrative power with both judicial attributes. The administrative nature is its essential attribute. However, the orientation of the procuratorial power in China should not only be based on the criteria of the division of the attributes of the state power, but also take full account of the legitimacy of the power in the national constitutional system and its realistic reasonableness. The procuratorial power in China is supervising and restricting the operation of public power and ensuring the unified and correct implementation of the law. The protection of social and public interests and the rights of citizens have great functions and values. Each of its powers performs its duty of supervising and restricting state power. The procuratorial power should become an independent state power, and the construction of the current people's procuratorial system is the correct choice in accordance with the national conditions of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D926.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙金寶;沈林榮;;論我國(guó)檢察機(jī)關(guān)定位上存在的問(wèn)題與完善[J];成都行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

2 宋爐安;;司法權(quán)辯析——法律監(jiān)督權(quán)是司法權(quán)嗎?[J];研究生法學(xué);1996年03期

3 王建國(guó);;列寧的檢察權(quán)思想理論及其對(duì)當(dāng)代中國(guó)的影響[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年06期

4 蔣偉亮;;國(guó)家權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)中的檢察監(jiān)督權(quán):理念與制度[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年04期

5 康誠(chéng);宋智勇;;對(duì)職務(wù)犯罪偵查權(quán)行使主體的再思考——檢察體制質(zhì)疑觀點(diǎn)之反駁[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年05期

6 汪進(jìn)元;權(quán)力制約的理性思考與模式選擇[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1998年01期

7 李洪朗;英國(guó)檢察制度評(píng)介[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2000年01期

8 陳衛(wèi)東,郝銀鐘;實(shí)然與應(yīng)然:關(guān)于偵檢權(quán)是否屬于司法權(quán)的隨想——兼答王天國(guó)先生[J];法學(xué);1999年06期

9 龍宗智;論檢察權(quán)的性質(zhì)與檢察機(jī)關(guān)的改革[J];法學(xué);1999年10期

10 賀衛(wèi)方;異哉所謂檢察官起立問(wèn)題者——與龍宗智先生商榷[J];法學(xué);1997年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 連峻峰;我國(guó)檢察權(quán)的法理學(xué)分析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 福津;檢察權(quán)獨(dú)立內(nèi)涵研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

2 趙文峰;論我國(guó)檢察權(quán)的性質(zhì)及其功能[D];湖南大學(xué);2007年

3 趙丹;檢察權(quán)性質(zhì)的比較研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

4 劉智威;論檢察權(quán)的屬性—中國(guó)法治進(jìn)程中的觀察與思考[D];北方工業(yè)大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1531196