普通共同诉讼的权限分配与范围界定

我国普通共同诉讼的实体要件过于单一,限于诉讼标的同一种类;程序要件较为僵硬,要求当事人与法院双重同意。这就使普通共同诉讼在司法实践中较难成立,适用范围比较狭窄,既难以发挥合并审理的诉讼效率功能,也无法承接必要共同诉讼的程序边界。普通共同诉讼的理论重构应当注重权限分配与范围界定。前者须合理协调当事人的程序异议权与法院的程序裁决权,限制合并管辖的适用情形,区分合并管辖与合并审理的不同定位。后者须明确普通共同诉讼与必要共同诉讼的进阶性顺位关系,必要共同诉讼应以合一确定的必要性而非诉讼标的共同为判断标准,普通共同诉讼须以诉讼标的同种且基础事实同种、基础事实同一或基础事实存在牵连关系三者作为合并审理的客观标准。     

The Impact of Court Delays on the Prosecutor and the Defendant: An Economic Analysis

One important aspect of the economic theory of criminal court delay is to understand how the prosecutor and the defendant make their decisions, and how these respond to changes in trial delay. If both parties jointly maximise expected utility, trial delay may increase or decrease the number of trials, depending upon the decision makers' attitudes towards risk. The main policy implication is that providing the criminal courts with more resources in the form of additional judges and court capacity may lengthen the trial queue rather than shorten it. This is a counterintuitive result contrary to popular belief.     

Seeing the improvement of the criminal trial structure from China’s criminal courtroom arrangements (tribunal design)

The setting of criminal court has become an important representation of the criminal trial structure due to its visual and vivid reflection of the legal position and relations among the three parties of litigation, i.e. the prosecuting party, the advocating party and the judge. As a result of the influence of ancient “inquest” centered trial mode, lack of the defendant’s right to silence and incomplete revolution of the criminal trial mode, the existing criminal court setting features an umbrella shaped structure. To reform the criminal trial structure in China, we should eliminate the air of “inquest” from the existing court interrogation mode, strengthen the hearing of evidence and set up a equiangular triangle shaped trial structure of neutral trial, equality between the prosecuting and advocating parties and litigant oriented. __________ Translated from the Jurist Review, 2005, (2) (in Chinese)     

内地与澳门程序性违法法律后果之比较

内地与澳门虽然都建立了程序性违法的制裁制度,但价值理念、法律传统等诸多方面的不同导致了两地在有关刑事诉讼程序性违法法律后果的规定上存在较大差异。针对警察、检察官或法官的各种违反法定诉讼程序的行为,澳门刑事诉讼法规定了诉讼行为无效制度和非法证据排除规则,构成其较为完善的程序性裁判机制。相比而言,内地有关程序性违法法律后果的规定则存在不少问题。深入比较两地的程序性违法法律后果,研究其各自的运作机理和制度绩效,对于两地尤其是我国内地程序性违法制裁制度的改革与完善具有重要的借鉴意义。     

民事诉讼审限制度的存与废

诉讼效率与法院的结构和运作紧密联系.在立法上诉讼效率取决于程序的科学构建,司法运作中则决定于案件管理水平.审理期限是一种视野过于狭窄的诉讼效率衡量体系,弹性过大的制度设置使其难以精确衡量并提高诉讼效率,故应以诉讼周期取而代之.本质上审理期限是法官职业伦理问题,而非民事诉讼法程序制度.在即将修改民事诉讼法之际,删除审限制度规定,加强对诉讼机能的调整,为当事人设置诉讼促进义务,使诉讼程序合理衔接,是提高诉讼效率的理性选择.     

法律推理视角中的法官自由裁量

法官自由裁量客观存在于法律推理过程中;审判三段论的大前提和小前提分别蕴涵着法官对适用法律和案件事实的自由裁量;在实质法律推理中法官通过价值判断进行自由裁量.     

中国调解与审判关系新论——从历史的视角

调解与审判合一,一直被认为是中国古代司法的优点。但正是因为调审合一有着明显弊端,我国古代司法向近代变迁时呈现出调解游离于审判之外的态势,这是利于依法治国及彻底解决纠纷的因素,值得我们在当代司法中借鉴。     

Miscarriage of Justice? Postcolonial Reflections on the ‘Trial’ of the Maharajah of Baroda, 1875

This article revisits the Baroda Incident 1875, providing a detailed examination of the Enquiry or ‹trial’ for the first time, and locating that examination in the wider socio-cultural context of the nineteenth century British Empire (especially the Raj) and the exporting of the ‹British’/English legal culture to the Empire. The implications of the establishing of British principles of justice, including the value placed upon Indian-generated evidence and testimony by the courts, are explored, in order to establish the Baroda Incident as a significant miscarriage of justice. Using historical methodologies as well as postcolonial insights, it demonstrates that the concepts of justice on which the British prided themselves were intrinsincally racialised as well as gendered, with profound modern resonances. Dr. Judith Rowbotham is a Reader, School of Arts and Humanities, Nottingham Trent University.     

试论精神病人的受审能力

本文讨论了受审能力的概念,针对精神病人的特点阐述了受审能力的评定标准,将中外有关此方面的立法和实践进行了对比,指出现阶段我国立法方法的不足之处,提出了根据国情对受审能力实行三分法的设想,并建议指定辩护制度应惠及精神病人以维护他们的诉讼权利。