作者：徐向华课题组
作者介绍：课题组成员:徐向华，上海交通大学特聘教授;石俏伟，上海市第二中级人民法院法官助理;张宇，上海市杨浦区人 民法院工作人员;林彦，上海交通大学凯原法学院教授;卢飏，贵州省高级人民法院研究室主任、 审委会委员
出版日期：2018年4月9日
内容提要 审委会"讨论案件并决议"的类审判职能因其非亲历性和不可追责性等缺陷而饱受争议并成为历次司法改革的重点攻坚对象。规范分析表明,由于法律设计和司法解释未能一以贯之,该项职能在实践中渐趋泛化和错位。实证研究显示,人员组成的高行政性与讨论议题的重影响性,使得审委会更倾向于保障政治安全和社会稳定;而大量讨论个案,不仅影响其宏观职能的发挥,易成为司法责任的黑洞,而且把控案件质量的实际作用并非如愿。长远看,改革路径在于还权赋能,通过逐步取消审判职权,全面强化指导功能,实现审判权完整回归合议庭和独任庭,重塑审委会作为审判中的咨询者和规则制定中的决策者两大角色。这一变革应在法制框架下分"三步走"平稳实现,再通过修法予以固化并推广。
关键词 审判委员会 司法体制改革 审判权
Abstract: The judicial committee has long been criticized for judging without presiding the trial, and the lack of accountability. Therefore, it has been the main target of the previous rounds of judicial reforms. The judicial committee's quasi-judicial functions are the by-product of the inconsistency between the formal statutes and the Supreme People's Court's interpretations, further strengthened and even misplaced in practice. Our empirical study reveals that the domination of administrative leaders in its lineup and the focus on issues of mass impact has made it to prioritize political security and social stability in decision-making. Decisions on individual cases, however, not only hinder its above-mentioned main functions, but can easily become a black hole for judicial liability, and are hardly a safeguard for the quality of judicial work. Long-term solutions will include eliminating the judicial functions of the judicial committee, enhancing its advisory roles, and fully empowering the collegial panel and individual judges. Advise-providing and rule-making will be its two key functions. The transition should be conducted smoothly in three steps, and will be finalized by amending the related statutes.