作者： 任禹行
作者介绍： 西北政法大学刑事法学院讲师，法学博士
出版日期：2026年6月9日
内容提要 刑事管辖关联的宽松化设定为异地趋利性执法提供了制度空间，但仅此并不足以证成限缩管辖关联方案的正当性。正确理解管辖关联，应区分抽象管辖权与具体管辖权：前者通过管辖关联的有或无，解决管辖资格是否存在的问题，承载示明管辖选择空间与执法司法主权的功能；后者通过管辖关联的强或弱，解决管辖资格如何实现的问题，本质是执法司法机关内部事权分配规则。异地趋利性执法暴露出管辖体系的真正问题不在于管辖关联的设定过于宽松以致抽象管辖权普遍确立，而是缺少具体管辖权层面的执法司法事权分配规则，使办案机关藉由抽象管辖权的规定获得实现具体管辖权的能力。应当引入针对弱管辖关联的阻断规则以规范具体管辖权实现，包括管辖关联创设禁止规则、非实质性损害的管辖必要性规则、并案关联的一次用尽规则以及基于回避事由的管辖禁止规则。
关键词 刑事管辖 趋利性执法 抽象管辖权 具体管辖权 管辖关联阻断
Abstract: The relaxation of criminal jurisdictional connections provides institutional space for cross-regional interest-driven law enforcement, but this alone is not sufficient to justify the proposal to narrow the jurisdictional connections. To correctly understand jurisdictional connections, it is necessary to distinguish between abstract jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction: the former resolves whether there is jurisdictional qualification by determining the presence or absence of jurisdictional connections, and carries the function of indicating the space for jurisdiction selection and the sovereignty of law enforcement and justice; the latter resolves how jurisdictional qualification is realized by determining the strength or weakness of jurisdictional connections, and its essence is the internal power distribution rules of law enforcement and judicial organs. The real problem with the jurisdiction system exposed by cross-regional interest-driven law enforcement lies not in the overly loose setting of jurisdictional connections, which leads to the widespread establishment of abstract jurisdiction, but in the lack of power distribution rules for law enforcement and justice at the level of specific jurisdiction, which enables case-handling organs to obtain the ability to realize specific jurisdiction through the provisions of abstract jurisdiction. It is necessary to introduce blocking rules for weak jurisdictional connections to regulate the realization of specific jurisdiction, including rules prohibiting the creation of jurisdictional connections, rules on the necessity of jurisdiction for non-substantive damage, one-use rules for joint case connections, and jurisdictional prohibition rules based on reasons such as withdrawal.