【作者】 赵永红；

【导师】 宋英辉；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2004， 博士

【摘要】 本文从裁判的含义和分类入手，在界定刑事程序性裁判的概念的基础上，对刑事程序性裁判制度进行了一番深入而系统的研究。论文共分八章。第一章，绪论。本文首先分析了刑事程序性裁判的定义，认为刑事程序性裁判是指作为裁判权主体的法院或者法官依据刑事程序规则，对在刑事诉讼中的程序性问题进行评价、判断，并在此基础上作出的具有法律效力的程序性处理的意思表示。它主要考虑以程序性裁判方式决定刑事诉讼中国家与公民之间关涉人身、财产权益等重大诉讼程序事项的合法性问题或者解决国家与公民之间、公民与公民之间因程序问题发生的诉讼争议，由于该问题对诉讼实体及诉讼目的之重要性，故而在解决该问题的同时，影响、限制或阻绝了诉讼实体在诉讼中寻求解决之途。其次，在分析刑事程序性裁判是司法权控制整个刑事诉讼程序的一种形式的性质属性基础上，对这一制度的特征、地位和功能以及基本内容进行了分析和研究。最后，对论文所采行的研究方法和研究框架作了说明。第二章，西方刑事程序性裁判制度评介。本文首先分析了影响刑事程序性裁判制度形成和发展的三个认识因素：对诉讼程序价值尤其是其独立价值认识的不断深化，对滥用权力的警惕和对司法权的信任。然后在此基础上，结合各国具体的司法体制环境，对存在于英国、美国、法国、德国、俄罗斯等国家刑事诉讼中的程序性裁判制度进行了介绍，并通过对比分析，认为虽然各国刑事程序性裁判在表现形式、具体规定等方面各有不同，但由于刑事诉讼内在规律的作用，两大法系刑事程序性裁判制度呈现出相互吸收和融合的趋势。第三章，刑事程序性裁判的理论基础。本文着重从法治理论、程序正义理论和司法权保障理论等三个方面论证了刑事程序性裁判的制度理性。认为：刑事法治要求在刑事诉讼领域内实现制约权力和保障权利的有效平衡，要求刑事诉讼程序法律不断健全与完善，刑事程序性裁判的确立和发展，适应了法治对刑事司法活动的要求；刑事程序性裁判要求承担介乎控诉职能与辩护职能之上的裁判职能的法院对存在于刑事诉讼中的一切诉讼程序性争议作出司法裁决，是程序正义理论在刑事诉讼中的实践反映；司法权保障理论不仅为刑事程序性裁判指定了基本的价值追求方向和目标，还直接规定了刑事程序性裁判的构造，此外，这一理论所体现的司法独立和司法权内在的层次性及其在现实上严格的层级独立，以及在实践中存在和运行的具体方式，也赋予了刑事程序性裁判充分的制度理性和实践理性。第四章，刑事程序性裁判的价值。为使人们可以通过刑事程序性裁判制度的构建及其对刑事诉讼法律实施的完成，去评价这一制度所依据的法律价值及目标取向，<WP=6>本文主张关注并澄清我们所欲使其折射的基本价值理念。从宪政意义和程序法意义两个层面上分析，刑事程序性裁判的价值主要表现在：（1）刑事程序性裁判是人权价值在刑事诉讼中得到实现的制度保障。它是刑事诉讼中的内在平衡机制，既对国家公权力的行使进行合理控制，又对公民的程序性权利给予合理救济；（2）刑事程序性裁判对法治秩序的形成和维护起着积极的推动作用。程序法治是法治秩序的一种重要表现形式，刑事程序性裁判是程序法治在刑事诉讼程序中得到落实的途径和保障；（3）刑事程序性裁判制度是使刑事程序自身保持理性构造的需要。刑事诉讼程序的“横向构造”要求在整个刑事诉讼进行中，在实行严格的控、审分离的前提下，要始终保持控、辩平等对抗和裁判者中立裁断的格局，刑事程序性裁判制度是实现这种格局的必要制度形式；（4）刑事程序性裁判是实现刑事程序独立价值的方式和途径。它是刑事程序的一种自身评价机制，是实现刑事程序自治的制度形式，是保证刑事诉讼程序自身良性运转的程序性内在监督机制，使在刑事诉讼程序框架内建立独立的诉讼程序争议裁决机制成为可能；（5）刑事程序性裁判是刑事实体性裁判的形式依据。第五章，刑事程序性裁判的原则。刑事程序性裁判的原则是法院在进行刑事程序性裁判时必须遵守的行为准则。这些原则蕴涵了法律价值在刑事程序性裁判活动中的基本要义，是对刑事程序性裁判之理论基础和价值作用于现实司法活动的高度概括，对刑事程序性裁判的具体实践具有极强的指导意义。本文结合刑事程序性裁判自身的性质和特征，就刑事程序性裁判所遵循的无罪推定原则、诉讼公正原则、诉讼合法原则、诉讼及时原则和令状原则等五项原则逐一作了分析。第六章，刑事程序性裁判权主体。本文在分析刑事程序性裁判权主体功能之后，对西方刑事程序性裁判权主体作了比较法上的考察，认为刑事程序性裁判权主体应界定为法官，并对此结论进行了论证。以此为据，针对我国刑事程序性裁判权主体多元化的现状及其引发的一系列问题，本文认为，在我国，应确立法院在包括刑事审判前程序在内的整个刑事诉讼程序中的裁判权主体地位，同时，结合现阶段的实际情况，在特定的情形下，在坚持法院作为刑事程序性裁判权主体的前提下，保留检察机关对某些程序性问题的先行处理权。第七章，刑事程序性裁判的范围和效力形式。刑事程序性裁判作为司法权对整个刑事诉讼程序的一种控制形式，其更多还原

【Abstract】 Begins with an analysis on the meaning and classification of a verdict, A Study on the Criminal Procedural Verdict, an eight-chapter thesis, makes a profound and systematic study on the legal institution concerning the criminal procedural verdict on the basis of clarifying the definition of the criminal procedural verdict itself.Chapter I, Introduction. In this chapter, by analyzing the meaning of the criminal procedural verdict at the first place, the author defines the term as a legally valid resolution concerning procedural issues made by the court or the judge, who holds the adjudicative power, pursuant to criminal procedural rules and on the basis of their appraisement and judgment about the criminal procedural issues occurred or already exist in the on-going criminal proceedings. Such a verdict, on one hand, aims at deciding the validity of those important procedural issues concerning personal rights or property rights which occurred between the nation and the citizen(s); or on the other hand, aims to solve the disputes over procedural issues between the nation and citizen(s) or between citizens as well. Then, the author makes analysis and study on the characteristics, importance functions and the basic contents of the legal institution concerning the criminal procedural verdict on the ground that this institution, in nature, could be deemed as a way to control the whole criminal proceedings by the adjudicative power. Finally, in this chapter, the author explains the approaches and the framework applied in this study.Chapter II, Review on the Western Legal Institution concerning the Criminal Procedural Verdict. In this chapter, the author first analyzes three factors in terms of notion that influenced the forming and development of the legal institution concerning criminal procedural verdict, namely, the continuously deepened recognition about the value of procedural due process, the vigilance against the abuse of power and the trust given to the adjudicative power. Then, by introducing, comparing and commenting on the legal institutions concerning criminal procedural verdict in the law of such different countries as the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany and Russia, the author finds that although due to the different legal structures and systems, the specific rules of the legal institutions concerning the criminal procedural verdict in different countries vary, there do exist a tendency that such institutions in the two legal families are learning from and <WP=9>integrating one another.Chapter III, The Theoretic Basis for the Criminal Procedural Verdict. This chapter focuses on the theory of rule of law, the theory of procedural justice and the theory of the safeguard of adjudicative power, which the author believes to be the basic reasons for legal institution concerning the criminal procedural verdict. Firstly, the rule of law theory in criminal proceedings requires not only an effective balance between limited power and guaranteed rights but also continuously improved and completed rules for criminal procedures while the establishment and development of the legal institution concerning criminal procedural verdict can properly meet such requirements. Secondly, according to the institution of criminal procedural verdict, the court or the judge, who bares the adjudicatory function, must make judgments over all the possible procedural disputes occurred in the criminal proceedings. This is an embodiment of the theory of procedural justice in the legal practice. Thirdly, the theory of safeguard of adjudicative power sets not only the basic values and aims for the institution concerning criminal procedural verdict but also its structure. Furthermore, this theory, which advocates the independence of judicial power and the hierarchy inside the judicial power, justified the criminal procedural verdict as a legal institution and a legal practice as well.Chapter IV, Values of the Criminal Procedural Verdict. This chapter discusses the basic values that the criminal procedural verdict更多还原