论公民的受审判权及其宪法保护

受审判权是公民接受公正司法的权利。由于受审判权是公民的基本权利 ,多数国家宪法对其进行保护 ,其中美国、日本、俄罗斯宪法的规定最为完善。中国宪法对受审判权保护存在众多缺陷 ,为更好地保护受审判权 ,中国宪法应把受审判权直接规定为公民的基本权利 ,在受审判权的内容方面应与《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》的有关规定保持一致 ,并建立宪法诉讼制度     

冲突与协调:检察监督与审判独立

一、法律原理与现实问题 我国<宪法>第126条规定:人民法院依照法律规定独立行使审判权,不受行政机关、社会团体和个人的干涉.第129条规定:中华人民共和国人民检察院是国家的法律监督机关.这两条宪法条文确立了我国的独立审判和检察监督两大原则.     

审判独立难以实现的原因及对策

我国宪法、法院组织法、法官法以及诉讼法都明确规定人民法院依照法律规定独立行使审判权,这表明审判独立不仅是我国的一项宪法原则,也是一项重要的诉讼原则.然而我国现行司法体制及法院内部管理体制使审判独立失去了基础和条件,使得审判独立在司法实践中得不到切实地遵行,非法干扰、阻碍法院独立审判的情况时有发生,造成了现实与立法的严重背离.因此必须对实现审判独立的现实障碍进行分析,寻求实现审判独立的具体途径和方式,以期审判独立在现实中真正得以实施.     

略论我国宪法司法适用的几个特点

因我国宪法规定的宪法适用机关尚未全面、积极地行使职权 ,故为适应社会需要 ,随人民法院适用宪法规范审判案件 ,便在我国出现了宪法的司法适用现象 ,这一现象具有审判权行使的无据性、审判主体的低层级性、宪法规范的直接效力性、所保护权利的私域性等特点。笔者认为 ,应在坚持宪法司法化的前提下 ,认真解决宪法司法适用中存在的问题     

论商誉权的人格权法保护模式——以我国人格权法的制定为视角

人格权是商誉权的本质属性,也是商誉权作为权利存在的根本.商誉权的人格权法保护具有深厚的法理基础.反不正当竞争法保护模式、知识产权法保护模式在对商誉权保护中存在一定缺陷,人格权法保护模式能够克服这些模式的不足.法人名誉权、信用权、商号权、商事人格权的立法模式亦不能很好地保护商誉权,只有将商誉权规定为一种人格权,才能更好地实现商誉权的保护.若商誉权在人格权法中缺失,不仅有害于商誉权的保护,而且影响到未来民法典中人格权法的独立成编,也影响到民商合一立法模式的实现.     

中国行政诉讼的平衡原则

<行政诉讼法>第1条规定"为保证人民法院正确、及时审理行政案件,保护公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益,维护和监督行政机关依法行使行政职权,根据宪法制定本法".本条既是<行政诉讼法>的立法目的,同时也是该法所确立的中国行政诉讼的一条基本原则--平衡原则.日前,最高人民法院针对行政审判因各地为应对国际金融危机而采取各种措施而引发的新情况、新问题,发布了<关于当前形势下做好行政审判工作的若干意见>(以下简称<意见>).该<意见>更以现代行政法的公平、公正与效率、效益相协调的原理为指导,进一步丰富和发展了<行政诉讼法>确立的平衡原则.     

韩国小额诉讼的立法宗旨与制度特色

韩国于1973年制定了单独的《小额案件审判法》,该法的立法宗旨是实现诉讼迅速和诉讼经济,为此,法律规定了具体制度和技术性操作规范以保障宗旨达成。韩国小额诉讼的制度特色包括:立法体例上独立于《民事诉讼法》;小额诉讼标的额较大,在实践中发挥着简易程序的功能;当事人享有双重的权利救济机制;程序设计中引入督促程序,创设了建议履行制度;规定了被告缺席时的拟制自认制度。其中,缺席拟制自认、建议履行不适合我国国情。     

关于法院民事审判与执行的几点建议

民事审判权从作用上讲是国家用以解决民事纠纷的一种国家权利;从形式上讲,它源于国家宪法和法律的规定。审判程序是人民法院行使审判权,确定权利义务关系的程序;而执行程序是人民法院行使民事执行权,强制实现权利义务关系的程序。本文通过法院裁判文书的制作、法院执行方面浅谈了关于法院民事审判与执行的几点建议。     

搜查与隐私权保护——加拿大宪法与美国宪法第4修正案之比较

<加拿大权利与自由宪章>第8条赋予了公民反对不合理的搜查和扣押的权利.与美国宪法第4修正案的发展历程类似,经由加拿大最高法院的判例解释,<宪章>第8条确立了隐私权的宪法保护.基于对美国宪法判例的批判和借鉴,<宪章>第8条下的隐私权在判断标准、保护范围方面体现了本国特色.第8条下隐私权具备的丰富内涵,不仅得益于加拿大最高法院确立的隐私权旨在促进的诸项基本价值,也与加拿大较为宽泛的非法证据排除规则有关.     

陪审团制度：老化的生产线——陪审团制度在美国刑事诉讼中的现状

陪审团制度由英国殖民者带进北美大陆，美国独立后把这一制度继承下来，联邦宪法第六修正案将“得到陪审团公正的审判”确立为刑事被告的一项基本诉讼权利。既然是被告的权利，被告当然可以放弃。于是联邦最高法院规定：被告可以放弃陪审团审判而主动认罪，但必须得到联邦法院和美国检察官的同意。可在很多州，被告放弃陪审团审判只需得到法院的同意并不需要州检察官的同意。     

Delay reduction in the federal courts: Rule 50(b) and the Federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974

During the 1970s, 94 federal district courts implemented two major policy initiatives, Rule 50(b) of theFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Speedy Trial Act, that were designed in Washington to combat delay in the processing of federal criminal cases. Both of these initiatives established a national priority of delay reduction in criminal cases, encouraged local district court planning for delay reduction; established reporting procedures for monitoring local compliance, and provided for the determination of quantitative goals for the time to disposition of criminal cases. Neither initiative mandated specific activities for delay reduction; this determination was left to the discretion of local federal district courts. This research examines the effectiveness of Rule 50(b) and the Speedy Trial Act by constructing a 150-month time series of three measures of case processing time. A multiple-intervention time-series model found that both of these initiatives contributed to the dramatic reduction in the time to disposition in federal criminal cases. These effects persisted after controls for changes in case characteristics and judicial resources were introduced.Points of view expressed in this research are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

论法人的基本权利主体地位

美国宪法并没有规定公司是基本权利主体,美国联邦最高法院在很多判例中亦认定美国宪法的特权与豁免条款不适用于公司。宪法第14修正案通过后,尤其是自19世纪80年代以来,美国联邦最高法院逐渐将宪法的保护扩大适用于公司,使得公司成为某些宪法基本权利的主体。这一转变迎合了美国经济发展的需要,使得国内统一大市场的建立成为可能。本文借鉴美国的宪法实践,细致梳理了公司作为基本权利主体的相关理论。     

安全抑或自由: 危机中的美国宪法简

危机时刻是验证法治国家体制适应性的真正时机，由于美国宪法没有紧急状态条款，在南北内战、一战二战、反恐战争等紧急时期美国总统往往行使“超宪法权限”侵犯公民基本权利。为保证危机中的宪法依然有效，处理好国会立法与总统紧急权力之间的重大分歧，作为制衡者的法院需要对宪法进行更加审慎的解释，但其所表现出来的实用主义政治立场变换和共和紧急法制观的转型，揭示了非常态下美国宪法解释的核心问题：要自由的宪法还是安全的宪法？这也正是当下危机频发背景下每个奉行法治和保障人权的国家面临的共同难题。     

An economic analysis of the right to a jury trial

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.… 6th Amendment, US Constitution     

MAGNA CARTA AND THE AMERICAN POLITICAL IMAGINATION: TWO INSTANCES OF HABEAS CORPUS VINDICATED

Magna Carta has long been understood as a source of inspiration for the U.S. Constitution, and especially its enshrinement of the writ of habeas corpus — the right of any prisoner to test his or her detention according to the law. In the “Suspension Clause” of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), Congress is granted permission to suspend habeas corpus only “when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This article surveys two failed attempts by the U.S. government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The first (which was actually the very first such attempt) was in 1807 and followed revelations of the so-called Burr Conspiracy. The second (incidentally the most recent in American history) occurred during the War on Terror and culminated with the Supreme Court’s decision of Boumediene vs Bush in 2008. A close examination of these two historical episodes reveals just how different were the constitutional processes of the early republic and contemporary times. Additionally, comparing the uses of Magna Carta during the two episodes demonstrates marked changes in American political culture. Historical consciousness, vital to early Americans’ understanding of their political system, has shifted to an elite level. Likewise, the protection of fundamental liberties has migrated from the popular branch of government (Congress) to the elite one (the Supreme Court). This article considers the implication of this shift in both constitutional processes and historical consciousness.     

中国宪法司法化路径探索

宪法实施中的违宪审查机制与宪法诉讼方式是两种不同机制的区别。在分析西方国家宪法实施的路径,以及中国实行宪法监督走违宪审查之路面临的困难后,根据违宪审查与宪法诉讼相别的理论,提出中国的宪法司法化方案,即违宪审查权仍由全国人大常委会行使,而由最高法院承担宪法诉讼的任务。     

美国宪法成文形式的历史渊源

本文简要地阐述美国宪法成文形式产生的历史渊源 ,认为近代首部成文宪法的诞生是美国本土长期而渐进的立宪进程的产物 ,它的成文形式可以追溯到早期开启北美殖民进程的英国王室颁发的殖民特许状和殖民者之间签署的殖民地合约 ,同时也受殖民地时期立法实践和宗教传统等方面的影响。此外 ,美国各州在独立后采用成文宪法的实践 ,以及《邦联条例》的起草、通过等事件 ,都为美国成文宪法的最终形成提供了及时的宝贵经验     

Speech, privacy, and the power of the purse: lessons from the abortion "gag rule" case.

In Rust v. Sullivan, 59 U.S.L.W. 4451 (1991), the US Supreme Court ruled that neither the privacy interests of family planning clients nor the 1st Amendment interests of their counselors prevented the government from banning all discussion of abortions in federally funded family planning clinics. In doing so, the Court also reaffirmed its view that the state and federal legislatures have virtually unlimited discretion in limiting or conditioning social welfare programs, a view having even greater long-term implications for American health policy than the implications of Rust for the constitutional protection of abortion. Rust upheld the Department of Health and Human Services' 1988 directive prohibiting the use of any funds from Title X of the Public Health Service Act (authorizing family planning programs) in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. This means that a clinician may lawfully respond to a client's inquiry about abortion only with a denial that abortion is an option. Thus, while allowing women the constitutional protection to chose an abortion, the Court has allowed the legislature to freely use the power of the purse to discourage or prevent the choice of abortion. Rust's greatest impact may well be in its acceptance of the enormous power wielded by the government over funded activities, especially in health policy. Justice Rehnquist believes there is not constitutional right to health, welfare, or any other government benefit; the legislative branches of the government cannot be required by judicial interpretation of the Constitution to provide any particular benefit or service to anyone. Even when the government chooses to fund a particular benefit, it is free to condition that benefit with virtually no judicially enforceable limits on that discretion.     

自由权的受益权功能之省思——以住宅自由的功能为例

住宅自由属于典型的自由权,虽然它也有些许受益权的功能,但并不能从中解读出国家帮助公民获得住宅的义务。自由权的受益权功能理论产生于德国基本法的特定背景之下,并不符合我国宪法的基本权利理论。它混淆了权利与权利的条件,也没有我国宪法文本上的依据。     

The normative case for indigent defense systems

Today, every indigent person accused of a crime, where incarceration is a reasonably possible sentence, has the right to counsel apppointed by the State. From an historical perspective, this right is relatively new, since it has only evolved over the last 50 years and is the result of a variety of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States. In essence, the States have developed three mechanisms to comply with these decisions: (1) Assigned Counsel Systems; (2) Contract Counsel Systems; and (3) Public Defender Systems. This paper (a) reviews the decisions applicable to indigents; (b) reviews existing indigent defense delivery systems; and (c) concludes that the independent State Public Defender Agency is the best system available from the perspectives of both the taxpayer and the defendant. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him: to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence (U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI).