| "判后答疑"的优势及其规范化探索 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 彭海青."判后答疑"的优势及其规范化探索[J].学术交流,2011(1). |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 彭海青 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 北京理工大学,法学院,北京,100081 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 2010年度教育部人文社科青年基金项目《刑事裁判共识的理论与制度保障研究》(10YJC820086)的阶段性研究成果之一 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 判后答疑是基于实践需求而生发的一项改革探索,其在止纷息诉、深化审判公开原则、节省司法资源等方面都具有积极作用。然而,学界对其合理性存在质疑声音,各地法院关于判后答疑的做法各异,影响了法制统一与对当事人的平等保护。解决判后答疑规范化问题,应当首先在理论上为其正名,然后从答疑案件范围、适用对象、答疑主体、有权要求答疑的主体、答疑的方式、答疑的期间、答疑后的处理等方面进行具体规范。
|
| 关 键 词： | 判后答疑 裁判共识 司法权威 |
"Explanation after Judgment":Its Advantage and Standardization |
| |
| Peng Haiqing."Explanation after Judgment":Its Advantage and Standardization[J].Academic Exchange,2011(1). |
| |
| Authors: | Peng Haiqing |
| |
| Institution: | Peng Haiqing(School of Law,Beijing Institute of Technology,Beijing 100081,China) |
| |
| Abstract: | Explanation after judgment as a trial in reform gearing into practical needs aims at reducing lawsuits and upholding justice in judgment and saving judicial resources.However,there are suspicions on its reasonability.Courts of different areas adopt different measures,which affects the uniformity of legal system and equal protection of parties.To solve the standardization of explanation after judgment,we should firstly correct name in theory,and then make specific regulations in the scope of answering cases,... |
| |
| Keywords: | explanation after judgment adjudication consensus judicial authority |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
|
