【作者】 倪春乐；

【导师】 孙长永；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑事诉讼法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 本论文由引言、正文六章和结束语组成。引言阐述文章的研究现状、选题意义、研究方法及存在的不足。引言直接点出了研究反恐怖主义犯罪诉讼程序的必要性、重要性和急迫性。反恐，已成为当今国际社会在安全领域的重要议题，“战争模式”的反恐已为实践证明并不可取。以刑事法律为依据，通过特别诉讼机制来应对恐怖主义，越来越成为各国反恐的主要途径。近年来，世界其他主要国家，在反恐刑事法律领域的研究开展得，如火如荼，理论上取得了不小的成果。我国的反恐形势极为严峻，而理论研究无法满足反恐现实的需要。以2001年《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（三）》的颁布为契机，反恐刑法研究至今取得了许多成果，这为依法反恐提供了重要法律支撑。反观反恐刑事诉讼法律的研究，这一领域几近空白。这与这一议题的重要性不相符，也与实体刑法的发展不相协调。有鉴于此，本文以“恐怖主义犯罪特别诉讼程序比较研究”为题，从比较法的视野对各国的恐怖主义犯罪特别诉讼程序作具体考察，希冀在立足国情的基础上对我国未来的反恐诉讼程序立法改革有所裨益。在研究方法上，本论文的写作以比较法研究和实证研究为主要方法，辅以价值论的相关理论。论题的选取相对比较宏大。加上国内学界对此课题的研究尚处初级阶段，研究基础较为薄弱。尽管作者在考察域外法方面下了不小的功夫，但鉴于语言功底、资料掌握程度以及分析研究水平等方面的原因，相关论述也难说达到深入的程度。对国内问题的把握上，作者虽然克服了一些实际困难，对相关单位和人员进行了调研，但由于本选题涉及内容的“敏感性”，资料的掌握也难说充分，对问题的分析也就不甚透彻，甚至有些偏颇。第一章主要介绍了恐怖主义犯罪的治理现状、国际反恐立法的发展及主要的反恐治理模式。恐怖主义犯罪已经被认为是与政治腐败、环境污染并列为21世纪人类面临的三大威胁。面对这种局势，各国纷纷从综合治理的角度，采取全方位措施应对恐怖主义犯罪。作为一种特殊类型的刑事犯罪，通过刑事诉讼的途径进行追诉和惩治，应当成为合理的选择。笔者从概览的角度对近年来，特别是2001年“9·11”恐怖袭击事件以来，国际组织及世界主要国家和地区的反恐立法改革和反恐实践进行了介绍和评析。根据打击恐怖主义的不同理念、不同方式、不同目的，笔者认为，反恐斗争主要可以划分为“战争模式”和“刑事诉讼机制”治理两种模式。美国的反恐战争是“战争模式”反恐的实践典型。“战争模式”的反恐与美国特有的“爱国主义”和反恐理念是相适应的。但实际上，恐怖袭击并非战争，因而“战争模式”的反恐指向错误。并且，美国式反恐战争的结果并没有契合其初衷和预期。相反，其实践中出现的政治化倾向造成了严重的人权危机。总体上，“战争模式”的反恐是一种危险的实践，这些都值得我们反思。刑事诉讼治理模式是一种相对合理的立场和操作，它将恐怖主义当作是社会机体内的现象，它在注重打击犯罪的同时也强化和确保犯罪追诉过程中的人权保障。第二章研讨了反恐特别诉讼程序的设立背景、理论基础及其基本特征。鉴于恐怖主义犯罪的特殊性，各国的立法和实践都有针对性的对原有刑事诉讼程序进行了必要的修改和调整，从而形成了一些特殊的程序规则。本文所论述的“特别诉讼程序”并非一套专门适用于恐怖主义犯罪的完整诉讼程序，而是一些特殊程序操作的综合。笔者认为，就当前的反恐刑事诉讼而言，这种特别程序的设立主要在于四个方面的背景：1.恐怖主义犯罪的特殊性；2.世界主要国家的反恐经验和教训；3.联合国及区域组织的推动；4.刑事法理论的发展演进。作为一种特别诉讼程序，它的设计必然有着自身独特的理论基础。笔者认为，其理论基础主要在于坚持反恐背景下安全利益为先的价值取向；坚持以国际人权法为基准的底线性正当程序权利的保障；坚持强化国家权力与保障基本人权之间的动态平衡。在总体上，反恐诉讼程序在价值理念、程序设计和实践操作上体现出了一些基本特征。对于基本特征的认识有助于我们对特别诉讼程序有整体上的把握。第三章以比较法为主要研究方法，通过国别考察的方式，对恐怖主义犯罪追诉过程中的侦查取证和羁押制度进行了具体探讨。恐怖主义犯罪的特殊性，决定了在防治理念和对策设计上的特殊性。各国普遍遵循“预防为先，防范和惩治并重”的原则，在侦查模式上，从传统的回应型向主动型转变。具体手段和措施的立法设计也更注重预防性和主动型。本章以法系为标准，对属于英美法系的美国、英国、加拿大和隶属于大陆法系的法国、德国等各国的侦查取证措施立法和实践进行了分别考察。两大法系各国总体上在反恐侦查取证措施立法方面体现出了诸多共同的发展趋势。这些共同趋势主要包括：1.新的技术手段不断应用于反恐侦查取证领域，在增强取证有效性的同时也带来了权利保障方面的难题；2.总体上放宽了对这些特殊侦查取证措施的司法控制，令状制度的限权功能有所弱化；3.适度降低了采取某些侦查取证措施的证据要求；4.在诸多领域强化了普通公众及公共服务机构的调查取证配合义务，使其从道义责任上升到法律责任；5.降低了侦查所获证据材料向诉讼证据转化的准入门槛。同时，由于英美法系国家（主要以英国和美国为例）本身在诉讼理念、立法准备等方面的原因，其与法国、德国等大陆法系各国在反恐侦查取证的改革方面呈现出一些差异。这种对比有利于我们发现影响反恐诉讼程序立法变革的内外因素。羁押是刑事诉讼中控制人身的重要措施，羁押制度的具体设计也是衡量刑事诉讼制度文明化、合理性的重要方面。文章以广义羁押为考察对象，对各主要国家的反恐羁押制度进行了对比分析。具体而言，在羁押制度上，美国实现了从“法律真空”模式到有限审查的转变；英国实行无限羁押制度和较有特色的控制令制度；加拿大根据反恐实际采取安全认证基础上的不定期羁押制度；法国在原有刑事诉讼立法的框架内贯彻严格的警察羁押。各国的反恐羁押在法律基础、权力行使、制度刚性以及对国际人权规范的认同态度上都有所差异。但也有共同的问题，即强调公民身份，并以之为依据进行差别对待；羁押的执行缺乏必要而合理的正当程序权利保障；司法权力对羁押程序有一定的控制，但行政权力的使用被极力推崇，等等。第四章着重对恐怖主义犯罪的庭审结构类型进行了比较研究。审判是刑事诉讼的中心环节，也是判断一种刑事程序的重要标杆。由于各国面临的反恐压力、审判制度的原型以及价值追求的侧重不同，恐怖主义犯罪案件的审判也呈现不同的类型和模式。本章同样以法系为划分标准，对美国的“军事法庭”和“反恐法庭”，以及学者们设想中的“国家安全法庭”进行了描述和分析；对英国在北爱尔兰实行的“Diplock”审判模式进行了分析和阐述；对以色列的“双轨制”审判模式进行了介绍。同时，对隶属于大陆法系各国，如西班牙、法国、德国的反恐审判的庭审类型进行了研讨。在此基础上，笔者从审判主体形式与功能、庭审控辩平衡与对抗程度、审判的基础和方法、审判规则等方面对上述各国的反恐庭审结构进行了比较和评析。从这我们从全局的角度了解各国反恐庭审制度的相关理论和实践提供了基础。第五章以恐怖主义犯罪诉讼中的特殊证据法规范为探讨对象，重点对四个方面的证据法问题作了论述。一是情报信息作为反恐诉讼证据的特殊来源，如何发挥其证据效用的问题，并结合域外理论和实践介绍和评析了特别作证程序；二是鉴于恐怖主义犯罪追诉中证人、被害人的重要性，探讨了对二者进行特别保护的相关举措，尤其是对特殊作证方式展开了论述；三是结合域外反恐诉讼的实际情况，对控方不断弱化的证明责任这一议题，通过简化式证明责任和证明责任分配的特殊规则两个方面，予以较为详细地介绍和论证，重点在于论述反恐诉讼中控方证明责任的特殊性；四是阐释了反恐诉讼立法和实践中出现的证明标准的特殊性，即其适度松动的趋势。第六章立足中国的恐怖主义犯罪刑事法治理的实践，主要以实证研究和广泛调研为基础，怀着“问题意识”对中国反恐诉讼程序改革进行了展望和具体构建。本章首先介绍了我国当前的反恐形势和刑事立法的应对现状，进而分析了我国反恐诉讼中设立特别程序规则的必要性和可行性。文章以国外立法和实践为参照，明确了中国恐怖主义犯罪诉讼程序立法改革的基本方向，探讨了特别诉讼程序的基本原则和结合点。最后立足于中国现有问题，在尊重中国立法传统和刑事程序法制基础的前提下，探讨了反恐特别程序的立法模式。进而，从如何有效打击恐怖主义犯罪和如何在程序框架内更好地保障基本人权两方面，提出了具体构建的程序举措。结束语说明本文已经进行的研究、基本结论以及可能需要继续研究的问题和方向。更多还原

【Abstract】 This doctoral dissertation includes an introduction, four chapters and a conclusion.Introduction relates the significance of writing this paper. At the beginning, thedissertation straight strikes the reality that the criminal procedure of the anti-terrorism crimesis necessary and important. Countering terrorism has been the most important global focus inthe international security fields. The “war on terror” mode has been proved by the reality to beirrationality. Countering crimes of terrorism by way of mechanism of criminal due processhas increasingly been accepted by the international community. Nowadays, there are greatimprovements about the anti-terrorism criminal legal research in other great powers. Chinahas been confronted with severe situation when countering terrorism, but the theoreticalresearch cannot meet the need of the reality of countering terrorism. In2001, China haspromulgated amendment ⅲ to the criminal law of the people’s republic of China, and theanti-terrorism criminal law research has made lots of achievements. There are important legalfoundations for fighting crimes of terrorism. In contrast, research about the criminalprocedural law is almost none. It is a great regret. In view of this, this doctoral dissertationregards anti-terrorism criminal procedure as the object of study.The first charter mainly introduces the present situation of the terrorism-countering, thedevelopment of international anti-terrorism laws and the mode of countering crimes of terror.The crimes of terrorism have been regarded of one of the three threats we human haveconfronted. So, every country has taken compositive measures to deal with it. In essence, it isa special kind of crime, and countering crimes of terrorism by way of mechanism of criminaldue process is a reasonable way. The author make an introduction and analysis of thelegislative reforms and anti-terrorism realities of the international organizations and the maincountries and regions after the “9·11” terror strike. There are two kinds of mode ofanti-terrorism. One is the “war on terror” mode, which is characterized by America. The warmode is in harmony with the “patriotism” and philosophy of the U.S.A. In fact, the terrorstrikes are not wars, and the object of the war of anti-terrorism is wrong. Also, the results ofthe war are out of the expectation of America. In contract, political tendency on theanti-terrorism fighting has led to great serious human rights crises, which is in essence a dangerous practice. The other is countering crimes of terrorism by way of mechanism ofcriminal due process. It is a relatively reasonable way, and it can make a dynamic balancebetween “crime strikes” and “human rights protection”.The second charter deliberates the conception of the special criminal procedure ofanti-terrorism and its backgrounds.And its theoretic basis and main characteristics are alsodiscussed. In view of its specialties, most countries have made modifications of their originalcriminal procedure laws, and the corresponding reforms have formed some special proceduralrules. The special criminal procedure in this doctoral dissertation is a synthesis of thesespecial rules. There are four basic premises for a special criminal procedure to crimes ofterrorism. Firstly, crimes of terrorism have their specialties comparing with the normal crimes.Secondly, attentions must be paid to the experience and lessons of the internationalcommunity on dealing with terrorism. Thirdly, the UN and other regional internationalorganizations have released and signed many resolutions and conventions, on which thespecial criminal procedure must be rested. Fourthly, there are great academic improvementsabout the criminal justice.There are three theoretic basises must be insistede. One, thesecurities are the supreme interest; Two, the base-lined due process rights must be protectedbeing based on the internatioanal human right laws; Three, a dynamic balance between “crimestrikes” and “human rights protection” must be preserved. In sum, there are some commontrends in the value idea, the procedure design and the factual practice in the criminalprocedure of anti-terrorism, which are conducive to grasp the holistic feature of the specialcriminal procedure, and also are deserve rethinking when making reforms of China’s criminalprocedure law.The third charter discussed the investigative and detains procedure of the crimes ofterrorism by way of country comparative. The specialties of the crimes itself have directeffects on the preventive idea and counter-measure design. Most of countries perverse theprinciple of “prevention first and give consideration to punishment”. The investigationmode has transformed from responsive to initiative. The author takes a comparative study ofthe countries such as America, the UK, Canada, which belonged to the Anglo-American lawsystem and France, German etc. which belonged to the civil law system. We found that thereare many commons in the investigation of the crimes of terrorism, including1. newtechnologies have increasingly been used in criminal investigations, which enhance theefficiency but results in problems of human rights protection;2. The judicial control of the investigative conducts has been loosened as a whole, and the function of the writ to placerestrictions on the powers has weakened;3. The evidence requirements of taking someinvestigative conducts have been lowered;4. The obligation to cooperation with theinvestigation organ of the commons are strengthened;5. The threshold of the evidence to beused in trial hearings has been lowered. The countries belonging to the Anglo-American lawsystem (especially the USA and the UK) have great differences with countries of civil lawsystems such as France and German in procedure idea and lawmaking preparations, so, thereare discrepancy in the investigation procedural law reforms. And the comparative study isconducive for us to dig out the factors having influence on legislative reform of criminalprocedure of anti-terrorism.Detainment is one of the most important measures in criminal proceeding, and thedetainment system is an indicator to weigh whether or not the criminal proceeding isreasonable. The dissertation takes a comparative research and analysis of the detainmentsystems in countries in countering terrorism crimes. To put it more specifically, the Americahas transformed from “.legal vacuum” to “limited review” mode; The Britain implementunlimited detainment system and characteristic control order system; Canada executeirregularly scheduled detainment system on the basis of security certification; The policedetainment system has been strictly observed. The detainment systems of the countries havedifferences in the legal basis, power execution, rigidity of the system and the degree ofrealization of the international human rights regulations. Meanwhile, there are commonproblems. One, the non-nationals are discriminated; Two, the reasonable and due proceduralrights are always deprived in the course of implementing detainment; Three, the detainmentsystem has little control by judicial, and the administrative power is unduly emphasized.The forth charter mainly discussed the structure types of trial court of the crimes ofterrorism by way of comparative research. The trial is the center of a criminal procedure, andit is a criterion for a proceeding. Different countries have different trial types and modebecause of their own security pressure, original systems and value chased. The author made acharacterization and an analysis of the “military court”, the “anti-terrorism court” and theproposed “national security court” in USA. And a discussion is made for the “Diplock trialcourt” in the Northern Ireland of Britain. The author also makes a study of the “double-tracksystem” in Israel. Meanwhile, the corresponding countries such as Spain, France and Germanwhich belonged to the civil law system are also involved in the comparative study. On the basis of that, the author made a conclusion in terms of the function of the subject of trial, thedegree of equilibrium of prosecution and defense, the basis and method of trial, and the rulesof trial. It helps us to known more thoroughly of the theory and practice of the systems of trialof crimes of terrorism.The fifth charter is about the special rules of evidence in the criminal procedure ofcrimes of terrorism. Four questions are discussed in this part:1.How the information obtainedfrom investigative conducts can be used as prosecuting evidence. There are some specialproceedings in foreign countries.2. How to protect the rights of the witnesses and victims interrorism crimes are important. Some special procedural measures are also discussed,especially the special procedure to testify in trial court.3. The burden of prove of theprosecutor is gradually unloaded in the course of prosecution of crimes of terrorism. Theauthor mainly dealt with the questions of rules of simplified burden of proof and specialdistribution rules of burden of proof.4. The standard of proof is lowered in procedure ofcrimes of terrorism; it is a new trend in some countries’ legislation and practice.The sixth charter mainly dealt with the criminal procedure reform and design in China,which is based on the reality of counter-terrorism of China and by way of empirical research.At the beginning, the author introduced the situation and criminal legislation ofcounter-terrorism in China. The cardinal directions of China’s criminal procedure reform, thebasic principles are discussed in this part. Then, some proposals, which is on the basis ofChina’s legislative tradition and existing criminal laws, are brought out to perfect China’scriminal procedure in order to effectively deal with the crimes of terrorism.Conclusion shows the accomplished research and the basic conclusion in the dissertationas well as questions and directions which needed to be studied possibly.更多还原