浅论对侦查行为的司法审查制度

对侦查行为由法院统一进行司法审查 ,是现代民主国家的普遍做法。我国之所以未能建立这种司法审查制度 ,主要原因在于“侦查中心主义”的诉讼构造和检察机关法律监督职能的影响以及法院的地位缺乏权威等。出于实现惩罚犯罪与保障人权的诉讼目的、贯彻决定与执行分离的原则、加强司法救济以及与国际刑事法治接轨的需要 ,我国也应当建立对侦查行为的司法审查制度 ,具体内容包括如实行司法令状制度和非法证据排除规则 ,明确规定侦查行为的可诉性等     

关于侦查权司法控制问题的思考

侦查权是一种具有行政权和司法权双重特征的特殊的国家权力。目前我国的侦查权司法控制严重欠缺,为了构建合理的侦查权司法控制体系,可以从确立令状制度、司法审查制度,完善非法证据排除规则等方面进行努力。     

对刑事司法令状主义的反思

令状的主要功能是控制侦查权,它的本质是对侦查行为事先进行司法审查。借鉴令状制度改造我国的刑事审前程序具有重要的现实意义。但令状制度本身并非万能的,它在理论层面和实践层面也具有局限性,我们对此应当有足够的认识。     

论未决羁押的司法审查

未决羁押应当进行严格的司法审查,应当有司法权保障,令状主义,比例性,例外性等权利保障的要求。西方国家普遍建立了针对未决羁押的司法审查,而我国缺乏羁押的有效的司法审查机制,必须建立针对未决羁押的司法审查机制。     

宪政与司法:刑事诉讼中的权力配置与运行研究

本文以宪政为背景,以司法审查为进路,阐述了现代法治国家刑事司法领域内的行政权力的特性及其与司法权的关系,并就我国的侦查权与检察权的定位进行了分析与检讨,认为二者作为行政权力,具有“范围宽泛”和“不受制约”的特点。作者认为,应当按照“有限政府”与“权利保障”的宪政要求,在我国建立司法审查制度,通过实行司法令状和非法证据排除等措施,规范和制约我国的侦查权与检察权,以实现宪法“保障人权”的目标。     

WTO与司法审查

司法审查是WTO法律框架中的重要内容 ,涉及法院的司法审查权、司法审查的标准和范围等一系列行政法学理论问题。鉴于目前学术界对这些问题尚存在较多误解 ,有必要通过研究和论证 ,准确把握WTO中司法审查的具体规则及其与我国司法审查制度之间的关系 ,以期推动我国司法审查制度的发展和完善。     

技术侦查中的通讯截取:制度选择与程序规制——以英国法为分析对象

英国作为典型的英美法系国家却在通讯截收制度上丢弃了欧美普遍实行的司法令状主义,在秉承传统侦查秘密观念下实行"行政令状"制度。该制度在受到欧洲人权法院败诉后逐渐构建了相对完备的通讯截收监督制度体系。我国技术侦查的内控模式与英国的行政令状制度极为相似,尽管2012年修改的《刑事诉讼法》将其法定化,但因未合理、清晰地指明侦查机关行使决定权的程序及适用的种类而不具有完全的"法律样态"。在我国现有的司法体制下,完善技术侦查制度不仅需要吸收英国法的教训,还要借鉴有益经验进一步构建技术侦查"必要性和最后性"的动态监督制度、获取证据材料作为定案根据的辩护制度以及向人大报告制度,在制度约束和程序控制上体现规制的严格性。     

源于“书写”的权利与技术——令状的司法化与普通法的形成

令状制度(thesystem of writs)是英国普通法历史上最为重要也最具有特色的司法制度,在王室法院适用的司法化令状以及与之紧密相关的具体的诉讼程序,是普通法独特的司法治理赖以存在的程序基础,普通法正是在王室法院适用司法化令状而形成的大量判例中逐渐成长起来的。本文把历史背景定在早期英国法的形成时期,即诺曼征服(1066)至亨利-金雀花时期(1154-1189),通过考察普通法形成初期的历史,阐述令状司法化的进程及其对英国普通法形成的重大影响,从而形成对于普通法和英国式法治传统的独特认识。     

搜查理由及其证明标准比较研究

搜查作为对权利人“基本权利之侵犯”行为 ,国外及我国台湾等地区的法律在确定司法令状予以节制门槛后 ,仍难以避免搜查权力过度张扬而克扣、缩减个人正当权利 ,于是确立了搜查理由作为第二门槛 ,对此的证明标准因犯罪严重程度、搜查对象保护程度、搜查时间不同、被搜查权利人阻碍等差异设置了不同层次的要求。我国刑事诉讼法再修正时应借鉴其有益经验 ,在确立司法令状 (司法审查 )的框架内 ,针对搜查的不同情况 ,规定相应的搜查理由及其证明标准     

对侦查活动的司法控制——建立刑事司法令状制度之管见

在我国,侦查权过于强大,侦查活动缺乏有效的司法控制,而司法令状制度正是对侦查机关的侦查行为进行司法控制的有效机制。我国刑事诉讼法并没有规定这一制度,为保障公民个人自由,抑制侦查权被滥用的倾向,在我国确立令状制度对强制侦查行为进行司法控制,势在必行。     

Homosexuality and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: What Can Be Learned from the History of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Despite differences between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) in terms of the substantive rights guaranteed and machineries to enforce them, both instruments have been foundational in the establishment of organizations that share a common history of rejecting human rights complaints from homosexuals. Although the contemporary jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on homosexuality may contrast sharply with that of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACtHPR) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACmHPR) – because the ACtHPR and ACmHPR have never upheld a complaint relating to sexual orientation – the early history of the ECtHR and the former European Commission on Human Rights (ECmHR) mirrors the current African stance. This article explores what those seeking to develop gay and lesbian rights in Africa might usefully learn from the historical evolution of similar rights under the ECHR.     

论欧洲人权机构对人身自由与安全权的保护

人身自由与安全权是一项重要的基本人权,同时也是实现其他权利的基础.作为<世界人权宣言>发表后诞生的第一个区域性人权保护组织,欧洲人权机构通过其丰富的判例对"人身自由"与"人身安全"内涵作出界定,确立了人身自由与安全权保护的一系列标准,并注重对被依法剥夺人身自由者所享有的权利的保护,但是,欧洲人权机构在保护人身自由与安全权方面存在人权委员会与人权法院对个案的决定相互矛盾的问题,欧洲人权法院对个别案件作出的判决也存在对公约的规定适用不当和对该项权利保护乏力的问题.     

An Equality and Human Rights Commission Worthy of the Name

The Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force on 2 October 2000, enabling the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be relied on directly in our domestic courts.¹ The Act lacked provision for a Human Rights Commission to advise and assist alleged victims in bringing proceedings for breaches of Convention rights, to research, intervene in court proceedings, and promote a culture of human rights, although such a Commission had been created for Northern Ireland. A White Paper has now been issued outlining plans for a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. This paper considers the future role and potential impact of the Commission and highlights opportunities that have been missed since October 2000 in its absence. We focus on its human rights aspects and summarize key conditions for the new Commission's success.     

Procedural Innovation and the Surreptitious Creation of Judicial Supremacy in the United Kingdom

In Re an Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review, the Supreme Court made unfavourable comments about Northern Irish abortion legislation in a way which showed complete disregard for elements of civil procedure which are a foundation of proper adjudication within the context of respect for democracy. This was but the latest of a number of cases in which the senior judiciary has made unaccountable procedural innovations furthering judicial supremacy in defiance of the sovereignty of Parliament. In addition to Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, two other of these cases, Simmons v. Castle and R (Miller and another) v. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, will be discussed. These cases reveal an effort to create judicial supremacy by means which we are obliged to call surreptitious.     

Repositioning the international human rights protection system: the UN Human Rights Council

The creation of a UN human rights mechanism was meant to address systematically the international protection and promotion of human rights within the context of international relations. Over the years, the Human Rights Commission has dealt with human rights issues in ways which some commentators have labelled unsatisfactory. The United Nations High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, set up by Kofi Anna to conduct an in‐depth study on global threats, and provide an analysis of future challenges to peace and security, recommended a review of HR mechanisms. This led to the establishment of the Human Rights Council, replacing the Human Rights Commission. One of the mechanisms introduced was the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights. This article looks at how the UPR process has progressed so far and makes some assessment as to where it is heading.     

试析联合国人权理事会与涉朝人权问题——兼及朝鲜人权问题对周边国家的影响

朝鲜人权问题一直受到联合国的关注。2004年联合国人权委员会首次将朝鲜列入了国别人权审议名单;2006年联合国人权理事会取代了人权委员会,建立了普遍定期审查机制,并于2010年对朝鲜进行普遍定期审议;蒙丹篷特别报告员多次提交关于朝鲜的人权报告,引起了国际社会的关注和朝鲜的抗议。而朝鲜自身的人权问题也对其周边国家产生着重大影响。     

Pluralism,Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine

In this article it will be argued that good use of the instrument of deference might help the EU courts to deal with the situation of pluralism that is currently visible in the European legal order. By means of deferential judicial review, the EU courts can pay due respect to national constitutional traditions and to national legislative and policy choices, thus preventing situations of real conflict. In addition, deference enables the EU courts to take into account the intricacies related to judicial review of norms drafted by co‐equal institutions or by national elected bodies. Although the EU courts already make use of some form of deferential review, they may use the instrument in a clearer and more structured manner. As a basis for the development of a European ‘doctrine of deference’, a comparison will be made with the margin of appreciation doctrine devised by the European Court of Human Rights. Although this doctrine is certainly not fault‐free, it offers a number of advantages in terms of clarity and controllability. If improved and adapted on the basis of theoretical notions of procedural democracy, the doctrine might be put to good use by the EU courts.     

Taking Care of Strasbourg: The Status of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Kosovo’s Domestic Legal System

This paper addresses the position of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law in Kosovo’s domestic legal order. To begin with, it reviews the background of the issue of human rights in Kosovo highlighting its distinct position and perspective. This article then analyses the position held by the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols in Kosovo’s legal order while also addressing the ECHR’s constitutionalization, its direct effect and the constitutional review on basis of it. The paper then examines whether the case-law of the ECtHR is binding in Kosovo, whether it is directly effective, and whether Kosovo’s Constitutional Court can use it as a ground in the conduct of constitutional reviews. This paper argues that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR both hold a privileged status under Kosovo’s constitutional law, despite Kosovo not being a party to the ECHR and, therefore, having no international liability to implement the ECHR. In addition, the paper offers certain arguments regarding the relative positions of the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR within the current practice of Kosovo’s judicial system. This paper concludes with the argument that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR hold a privileged status in the context of Kosovo’s domestic legal order—one which could serve as a precedent in respecting human rights and freedoms.     

Judicial Deference under the Human Rights Act

Judicial deference to the other branches of government has become a common judicial technique in cases arising under the Human Rights Act. The author outlines the current approach of British courts in deciding when to defer, arguing that it is flawed and unprincipled. The author goes on to argue that a principled approach to deference is necessary, and offers examples of when and how courts should defer to the other branches of government when considering constitutional claims.