会审公廨是中国的审判机关异议  

An Objection on Holding the Mixed Court as China's Judicial Organ

作　　者：王立民[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学法律学院,上海200042

出　　处：《学术月刊》2013年第10期29-39,共11页Academic Monthly

基　　金：作者主持的上海市哲学社科规划项目"‘西法东渐’与近代中国寻求法制自主性研究"(2011BFX005)的阶段性成果;作者负责的国家社科基金重大项目"法律文明史"(11&ZD081)第11子课题"近代中国法"的前期成果之一

摘　　要：在对会审公廨的研究中,有一种观点似乎已成定论,即其是中国的审判机关。然而事实并非如此。把会审公廨与华界的中国审判机关和会审公廨收回后租界内设置的中国审判机关相比较,可以发现它们在审判机关体系、审判人员组成、适用的实体法和程序法等方面都不一样。从法制的统一性角度来分析和论证,可以说明会审公廨不是中国自己的审判机关,而是租界自己的审判机关。再从《上海洋泾浜设官会审章程》及其运行、会审公廨的差异、华界与租界间使用的引渡、辛亥革命后的变化等四个方面来看,也能说明会审公廨是租界的审判机关而不是中国的审判机关。租界需要建立、运作自己审判机关有三大原因,即是为了实现租界自治、抵制中国的进步力量、进一步侵害中国的主权等。正确认识会审公廨的性质,有利于全面理解中国近代法制的演变和发展、中国租界法制的体系和性质、中国近代审判权和国家主权受损的状况等一系列问题,因此不可忽视。Among the researches on the Mixed Court, it seems to be a definite conclusion that the Mixed Court was the judicial organ of China. This paper raises an objection towards this point and offers explanation. A comparison of the Mixed Court with Chinese judicial organs outside the Concession and the ones set up in the Concession after the revocation of the Mixed Court reveals that they differed in such aspects as judicial system, personnel composition, applicable substantial law and procedural law. It＇s proved from the perspective of judicial uniformity that the Mixed Court was the judicial organ of the Concession rather than a Chinese one. This fact can be further consolidated by the Regulations of Establishing the Mixed Court in the Concession and its implementation, the differences of the Mixed Court, extraditions between the Concession and Chinese sections and changes after the Xinhai Revolution. The establishment and operation of the Concession＇ s own judicial organ was for the sake of autonomy of the Concession, resistance to progressive Chinese forces and further infringement of Chinese sovereignty.

关 键 词：会审公廨 中国的审判机关 租界的审判机关 

分 类 号：D9[政治法律—法学]