检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:单锋[1]
出 处:《甘肃政法学院学报》2006年第3期38-42,共5页Journal of Gansu Political Science and Law Institute
摘 要:无论是理论界还是实务部门,有关公益诉讼的探讨都方兴未艾,检察机关相较于其他国家机关代表国家维护公共利益提起民事诉讼无疑是一种最佳选择。但检察机关的民事起诉权应是其诉权的反映,而非渊源于检察机关的民事法律监督权,二者是有明显区别的。在当下一个权利多元的社会中,检察机关代表国家提起民事诉讼仅是维护公共利益的方式之一,因而如何准确的表述公共利益和确定检察机关的民事起诉范围便成为考量检察机关民事起诉权边界的重要参数。No matter in theoretical or practical fields,discussion on litigation for public interest is in the ascendant. Compared with other official departments, the procuratorial authority is more suitable to take a civil action for on behalf of the state. But the procuratorial authority's power of taking a civil action is embodiment of its litigious right instead of originating from its power of supervising the implement of law. Taking a civil action by the procuratorial authority on behalf of the state is only one of the measures of protecting public interest in current society of various kinds of rights. How to define the meaning of ‘public interest’exactly and prescribe the reach of power in which the procuratorial authority can take a civil action have become main parameters of analyzing the limits of the procuratorial authority's power of taking a civil action.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.28