论文标题:我国违宪审查制度研究
Research on China"s Constitutional Review System
论文作者
论文导师 韩大元,论文学位 硕士,论文专业 宪法学与行政法学
论文单位 中国人民大学,点击次数 107,论文页数 52页File Size454K
2008-05-01论文网 http://www.lw23.com/lunwen_125409272/
constitutional review;;norms;; theoretical basis;;fact
违宪审查制度一直是我国宪法学界的研究热点问题。截至2008年3月,从中国知网上的搜索统计来看,关键字包含“违宪审查”的文章达1190篇,其中博士论文7篇,硕士论文75篇。从上述数据来看,关于“违宪审查”制度的研究,可谓硕果累累。我国违宪审查制度研究是个“古老而又现实”的问题,说其“古老”是因为学术界对其研究也历经好几年,说其“现实”是因为我国违宪审查制度目前仍急需改革,理论支撑仍不足够。只要中国还没有建立真正的行之有效的违宪审查制度,那么在宪法学研究中花再多的精力讨论违宪审查问题都是必要的。 本文拟从规范层面、价值层面、事实层面三个层次对我国的违宪审查制度作一个详细的分析,最后反思我国违宪审查制度改革的方向。 第一部分,我国违宪审查制度的规范分析。在该部分中,笔者摒弃了传统的分析方法,以违宪审查主体区分为视角,将我国违宪制度分为以全国人大为审查主体的违宪审查制度和以全国人大常委会为审查主体的违宪审查制度,并对其对应的审查对象、审查程序、审查权的法律依据进行详细分析。 第二部分,我国违宪审查制度的理论基础。在该部分中,笔者详细介绍了我国违宪审查存在的理论基础和我国违宪审查模式选择的理论基础。笔者认为我国违宪审查制度存在的理论基础包括:根本法价值、法制统一性价值、人权保障价值;我国违宪审查制度模式选择的理论基础:人民代表大会制度、集体主义的社会主义价值观、“谁制定,谁解释”的法解释学理念。 第三部分,我国违宪审查制度的事实状态。在该部分中,笔者梳理了我国近年发生的几个涉及违宪审查的案例,指出我国违宪审查制度虚置的事实状态;并分析了我国违宪审查制度虚置的原因。其中形式原因包括:双重的违宪审查主体、全国人大及其常委会的组织形式及职权杂乱、违宪审查制度立法技术及内容的不完整;实质原因包括:合法性审查权力和合宪性审查权力配置的不科学、立法权和违宪审查权力配置的冲突等等。 第四部分,我国违宪审查制度的反思。在该部分中,笔者首先对目前学者主张的三种改革模式在我国实行的可行性进行分析,接着提出我国违宪审查制度的改革方向应为:有效地促进我国的合法性审查权力、违宪审查权力、立法权三者的分离,理顺合法性审查和违宪审查的关系,理顺违宪审查权力和立法权的关系,最后简要地说明了改革的措施并进行了可行性论证。
The system for the constitutional review is always a hot issue in the academic research of science of constitution. Up to 8th march, from the statistic of the search on the cnki.net, there are 1190 articles whose keywords include“constitutional review”, which contain seven doctoral theses and 75 master"s theses. From the data above, research on the system of "constitutional Review" has made great achievements. The research on China"s constitutional review system is an ancient topic because its academic research has last several years; but it is also a reality problem because China"s constitutional review system is still in urgent need of reform, whose theoretical support is not enough.“As long as China has not yet established the real effective constitutional review system, it is necessary for the scholars to spend much time discussing the issue of constitutional review system in the research of science of constitution.” This paper makes a detailed analysis on China"s constitutional review system from the normative level, the value level and the fact level and reflects on the reform of the system. Chapter 1, The norms of China"s constitutional review system. The author abandons the traditional method of analysis and divides China"s constitutional review system into two parts (the constitutional review of National People"s Congress and the constitutional review of the NPC Standing Committee).after that, the author makes a detailed analysis on the targets of the review, the review process, the legal basis of the review. Chapter 2, The theoretical basis of China"s constitutional review system. The author details on the theoretical basis of the foundation of China"s constitutional review system and the theoretical basis of the mode China"s constitutional review system has chosen. The theoretical basis of the foundation of China"s constitutional review system contains: The value of the Constitution, the value of the unity of the legal system, the value of the protection of human rights. The theoretical basis of the mode China"s constitutional review system has chosen contains: The people"s congress system, collectivism, the hermeneutic concept of "who formulate, who explained" etc. Chapter 3, The effect of China"s constitutional review system. The author analyzes several cases involving the Constitutional Review and points out that the constitutional review system isn’t in effect. The author analyzes the reasons of the failure, which contains: the double main of the Constitutional Review system, the organizational form and the mess of terms refer to the NPC and its Standing Committee, the incomplete legislation of the Constitutional Review system etc. Chapter 4, Reflection. Firstly, the author analyzes the content and the feasibility of the three models which the scholars urged in the reform of China"s constitutional review system. Secondly, the author points out the direction of the reform: effectively separate the three powers (the power of legal review, the power of constitutional review, legislative power)and rationalize the relationship of the three powers. Finally, the author makes a brief description and a feasibility study of the reform measures which he urges.
|
