公民基本权利的司法救济探析

司法救济是保障公民基本权利的最终途径,宪法的法律属性决定了它的直接法律效力。公民基本权利的宪法规定可以适用于诉讼。我国虽未真正建立起对公民基本权利这一宪法权利的司法救济制度,但已呈现出了司法救济的雏形。建立和完善我国公民基本权利的司法救济制度,有利于保障公民基本权利的实现和对宪法实施的有效监督。     

论宪法性基本权利的司法保障

公民宪法性基本权利的司法保障是我国法治建设的重要内容。但由于观念和制度的偏差 ,使宪法不能直接适用于司法。宪法的基本特征决定了它是控制国家权力、保障公民基本权利的法律 ,它的法律性决定了公民宪法性基本权利可以通过司法途径加以保障。公民宪法性基本权利进行司法保障的途径是改革法律制度 ,建立宪法委员会和宪法法院 ,赋予法院司法审查的权力。     

论公民宪法基本权利的司法救济

我国目前并无宪法诉讼制度,宪法确认和保障的平等权和言论、出版、结社、宗教信仰自由等公民基本权利仍没有具体法律予以落实,公民宪法基本权利的司法救济还存在诸多障碍。在我国法制环境还很不成熟的情况下,公民宪法权利的司法救济途径可通过民事诉讼或行政诉讼救济途径保障公民宪法权利。但建立宪法诉讼制度,宪法诉讼救济保障将是最后的一道救济防线,这也是我国实现宪政的必由之路。     

论公民宪法基本权利的司法救济

我国目前并无宪法诉讼制度，宪法确认和保障的平等权和言论、出版、结社、宗教信仰自由等公民基本权利仍没有具体法律予以落实，公民宪法基本权利的司法救济还存在诸多障碍。在我国法制环境还很不成熟的情况下，公民宪法权利的司法救济途径可通过民事诉讼或行政诉讼救济途径保障公民宪法权利。但建立宪法诉讼制度，宪法诉讼救济保障将是最后的一道救济防线．这也是我国实现宪政的必由之路。     

论我国宪法司法化的实现

宪法司法化是宪法法律性的内在要求,也是宪法发展趋势之一,但我国并没有真正地实现宪法司法化。近年来,我国的一些司法判例引发了人们对宪法司法化的思考。我国必须要走宪法司法化路线来更好的保障公民基本权利,而宪法是可以而且应当具有司法适用性的。我国宪法应当明确规定,各级人民法院具有直接依据宪法裁判具体违宪案件的权力,从而为各级人民法院行使宪法司法化的权力提供最终和最高的法律依据。     

浅论宪法司法化对公民基本权利的保障作用

宪法对公民的基本权利进行了较为详细的规定,但是因为宪法具有较高的抽象性,法官在案件裁决时很难对其进行直接援引从而导致公民部分基本权利受到侵害而在普通法律中没有进行具体和量化时无法得到应有的司法救济。国际上解决上述问题的通用做法是实行宪法司法化,而宪法司法化也是保障公民权利的最后一道防线。本文从我国宪法司法化的现状和存在的问题出发,提出了宪法司法化在保障公民基本权利方面的必要性和发挥的重要作用,探讨了进行宪法司法化需要注意的问题。     

公民基本权利司法保障的宪法学分析

对公民基本权利受到第三人侵害时 ,如何寻求司法保障的问题 ,目前宪法学界有不同看法。笔者认为 ,要从理论上解决这一问题 ,首先应当弄清公民基本权利的内涵以及与此相关的宪法关系的特点。当公民基本权利受到第三者侵害时 ,要求国家予以保障 ,是公民基本权利的固有内涵 ;国家权力通过积极行为对公民基本权利进行保障 ,是宪法关系的应有之义。因此 ,从理论上和实践中确认普通法院对第三人侵犯公民基本权利行为的司法审查的合法性 ,通过对侵犯公民基本权利的审查 ,对违宪行为予以撤消 ,是公民基本权利司法保障的可行途径和手段。     

论刑事司法权利的宪法保护

公民受刑事追究时享有一系列程序性权利 ,涉及人身自由和安全的保障 ,属于基本人权范畴。此类权利应当具有防范国家司法权力侵害的防御功能 ,因此仅仅通过刑事诉讼法予以确定和保护是不够的 ,还应当由宪法加以确定和保障。保障公民的刑事司法权利应当是尊重和保障人权的核心内容。借鉴各国宪法的规定以及有关国家宪法实践 ,我国应当完善公民刑事程序权利宪法保护。     

析公民基本权利条款在宪法适用中的地位

建立保障公民基本权利的宪法诉讼制度 ,首先应确立宪法的公民基本权利条款在司法实践中的直接效力 ,即宪法权利的司法化。而普通司法机关“违宪审查”的实践以及在全国人大常委会内设置专门的委员会来保障宪法的实施 ,在我国并无现实的政治和社会基础。     

论我国的宪法司法化

本文介绍了宪法司法化的起源、含义,分析了我国宪法司法化的现状,从宪法的法律性、最高权威性、保障公民基本权利、"依法治国,建设社会主义法治国家"的要求等方面,阐述了宪法司法化的必要性。     

刑事司法的国民基础之实证研究——一项基于城市问卷调查的分析

刑事司法体系需要国民的信任乃至信仰,从而形成真正的司法权威,才能赢得正当性基础,刑事司法改革也才能顺利开展。调查显示,我国城市普通民众对于公安司法机关及其工作人员的信任度有所下滑,认为司法不公和司法腐败并非个别现象,同时,民众的刑事诉讼人权保障意识大为增强,具备了参与刑事司法和监督刑事司法的意愿与能力。     

“This case is about you and your future”: Towards Judgments for Children

A handful of ‘child-friendly’ judgments have emerged in the UK in recent years, attempting to adopt a child-centred approach to the decision-making stage of the legal process. Most notable is Sir Peter Jackson's judgment in Re A: Letter to a Young Person which, in taking the form of a letter to the child, has been applauded as a model of how to achieve ‘child friendly justice’. This article examines how and why the form and presentation of judicial decisions is an important aspect of children's access to justice, considering not just the potential but the duty of judges to enhance children's status and capacities as legal citizens through judgment writing. We identify four potential functions of judgments written for children (communicative, developmental, instructive and legally transformative), and call for a radical reappraisal of the way in which judgments are constructed and conveyed with a view to promoting children's access to justice.     

司法对法律体系的完善

人民法院的司法活动对完善法律体系具有不可替代的独特作用。司法通过作用于法律体系的微观向度、调适过程、法与社会联系的建立、成文法固有缺陷的克服来完善法律体系。完善的具体方式包括司法解释、法律解释、指导性案例、司法审查、司法建议、参与和配合立法、送请有权机关审查和裁决、提出法律案等。对于通过司法完善法律体系,需要树立正确的理念。     

关于在诉讼活动中设立人民陪审团制度的思考

现代陪审制度是司法机关吸收普通公民参与审判活动的制度,是一个国家政治民主在社会生活中的重要体现,其有助于保障法律有效实施.通过对我国现行人民陪审员制度的分析,揭示其目前存在诸如立法上的不足、专职陪审现象、陪而不审、审而不议、不能切实有效发挥作用等问题.同时以美国、日本为例,比较考察域外陪审制度,借鉴域外有益做法,并结合我国法治建设的实际,主张设立人民陪审团制度,可以有效强化司法裁判中事实认定的正当性和可接受性,真正实现司法民主,促进司法公正,提升司法公信力.     

The Reshaping Effects and Limitations of the Judicial AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) application in the judiciary has initiated the historical process of moving from access to justice (ATJ) to “visible justice” and has profoundly changed the judicial operation mechanism. The judiciary’s visualization, codification, modularization, and intellectualization are reshaping the judicial procedure and greatly improving the efficiency of intelligent justice. But Judicial AI (JAI) still has its inherent limits. It is not easy to achieve absolute objectivity and accuracy in algorithmic decision-making, and in more complex cases, JAI can promote formal justice but not substantive justice. The judiciary’s AI optimization and reshaping effect should be developed simultaneously with risk prevention. It is necessary to establish corresponding regulations and relief mechanisms for algorithmic decision-making and to infuse the concepts of openness, fairness, and responsibility to promote science and technology for goods and positive development of intelligent justice to realize “visible justice.”     

民众参与审判的案件类型学分析

民众参与审判主要包括治安法官、参审法官和陪审法官三种制度类型,其案件分布呈现趋同性和差异性两种规律。前者是指各国通过各种形式吸收具有相关知识和经验的民众参与专门案件审判。就后者而言,治安法官主要审理涉及私人纷争、社会影响不大的案件,陪审法官和参审法官主要审理涉及公共利益、社会影响较大的案件。究其原因,案件类型不同,民众参与审判的意义、制度设计及实践运作亦有所差异。当前我国人民陪审员主要参与轻微案件审判,与法律规定及上述规律均发生明显背离。这种背离有其客观原因和现实意义,但在充分发挥民众参与审判的作用方面仍有很大的改革空间。     

Judicial Procedural Involvement (JPI): A Metric for Judges’ Role in Civil Litigation,Settlement, and Access to Justice

We examine judges’ role in civil litigation by studying empirically the relationship between judicial procedural involvement (JPI) and lawsuits’ mode of disposition (MoD). Furthermore, we propose JPI as a metric for the allocation of judicial attention to litigants. Applying the framework to Israeli trial court data, we find that 60 per cent of cases included JPI (through hearings and rulings on motions) whereas 40 per cent involved only the court's institutional function. By juxtaposing JPI and MoD data, we shed light on the scope of judicial involvement in settlements, the ratio between judges’ normative public-life function and their problem-solving function, and other pertinent questions. Since nowadays lawsuits are rarely adjudicated, trial rates are low, and litigants in person (pro se litigants) are common, we argue that access to justice should also be construed in terms of access to judicial attention throughout the proceeding, which is readily measurable through JPI.     

社会正义的司法演绎——周美知申诉案法理评析

正义是社会的价值追求,法是社会正义的表达,正义的司法是能够满足社会公众利益最大化要求的司法。周美知等人不服不起诉决定申诉案的受理和查处,实现了民众情感、社会公理和法律规范的有机结合,揭示了在构建和谐社会的语境下司法决定和社会正义价值认同的必要性与可行性。     

Citizenship and justice: public prosecutors in social contexts in Portugal

All over the world judicial systems are under tremendous pressure as the instruments used by citizens to access their full rights. The erosion of other state powers has transferred expectations of social intervention or, at least, protection for the rights of the weak and vulnerable, to the sphere of justice. Hence, in some countries the social role of judges or public prosecutors has become more important and their work is publicly scrutinised to ensure that their duties are performed correctly and fairly. In addition to criminal law, social areas of justice (concerning workers and children) have become more central to judicial systems, conferring a new public responsibility on these professionals.

In several countries, including Portugal, public prosecutors are unusual within the legal profession given that they have equal status in both social and criminal areas of law. In certain systems, public prosecutors may act as a party, defending the rights of powerless citizens and leading them through the judicial process. Such powers offer great potential for fairness and justice but at the same time can lead to dangerous professional controversies. Through an analysis of the Portuguese model, one of the more advanced of its kind (in terms of intervention), some of the main features will be described and identified.

Public prosecutors in Portugal have, for many years, been in charge of a set of very varied responsibilities within the context of the Family and Juvenile and Labour Courts which far exceed what is publicly acknowledged, particularly in criminal matters. However, their functions are not limited to those of the ‘public prosecutor’ or ‘coordinator of the investigation’ typically associated with responsibilities in criminal matters.

Within the context of these two major and socially sensitive areas, public prosecutors act as intermediaries between the different parties and entities involved in litigation, a fact which, in professional terms, endows them with features which are atypical of magistrates and places them in close contact with citizens. Thus, taking a case study based on the Coimbra Family and Juvenile and Labour Courts as its starting point, this paper aims to map out these formal and informal functions, which create a level of importance that is probably much higher than would have been expected, particularly given the lack of truly credible and effective alternatives that enable citizens to access law and justice.