美国毕文斯原则在反恐案件中的适用及启示  

The Application of Bivens Doctrine in U.S. Terrorism Litigation and Its Implication to China

作　　者：郭永良 

机构地区：[1]国人民武装警察部队学院边境与出入境安全研究中心,河北廊坊065000

出　　处：《江苏警官学院学报》2016年第4期17-24,共8页Journal of Jiangsu Police Institute

基　　金：2016年度国家社科基金青年项目“现代边海防视角下陆地边境安全风险防控机制研究”(16CZZ033)成果之一

摘　　要：美国反恐诉讼多是原告基于毕文斯原则提起的。自1971年其确立至今,法院在适用时采取了权利模式和审慎模式两种进路,并逐渐发展成以后者为主导的局面。但在近期反恐案件的审理中,权利模式却呈上升趋势。这种摇摆不定的局面带来了诸多问题。为了化解困境,法院试图在二者之间尝试平衡模式,学者呼吁国会对毕文斯原则进行立法或修改《联邦侵权索赔法》,实务部门建议在行政或立法部门中专设审查机构。以行政主导为传统的我国,法院势必采取审慎模式。但是如何保证因反恐行动侵害的合法权利,亟需借鉴美国经验。Most of the U.S. terrorism related cases are sued on the basis of Bivens doctrine. From 1971, two models which are right-model and prudential-model are taken by courts, and the latter one is in predominate role with time-going. However, recent terrorism cases portend a return to the former model. In order to avoid Bivens dilemma, courts try to seek a balancing approach, scholars are proposing amendments of FTCA and urging congress take actions, while the practical workers are suggesting the establishment of a specialized agency in the elected branches. Administrative branches play an important in China traditionally, the judicial will take a prudential role in the counter-terrorism actions, and consequently it is needed to learn from the U.S. experience on how to protect the rights of innocents.

关 键 词：毕文斯原则 反恐诉讼 反恐怖法 

分 类 号：D912.1[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学] D815.5[政治法律—法学]