清末诉讼模式的演进
摘要
清末“新政”的实施为中国传统法制向近代转型提供了契机,清末的修律主要是移植外国法律,以审判为核心的诉讼制度也随之发生了根本性的转变,诉讼程序法从传统“诸法合体”的体例中分离出来,并在司法实践中得以实施,在我国法制历史上具有重要的意义。清末的诉讼程序立法走过了一段曲折的历程,本文以系统论的观点,考察清末由各项诉讼制度所构建的诉讼模式的演变,从传统的纠问主义诉讼模式,到尝试建立英美法系的当事人弹劾主义诉讼模式,最终选择了大陆法系“国家弹劾主义”诉讼模式。由于法律移植固有的特点,不可避免地发生本土法律观念与西方法律观念的冲突,并反作用于所移植的法律,本文将清末所构建的诉讼模式与西方法律相比较,考察西方诉讼制度在中国的变异,分析其产生的原因。本文除序言和结论部分之外,共分四章,主要内容如下:
第一章,中国传统司法的诉讼模式与近代转型的契机
本章首先考察我国传统司法的制约机制及其诉讼结构模式。传统司法制度是建立在专制的政治体制之上,存在着与西方完全不同的内控约束机制,中央各机关采用审判权多元化的制约机制,而地方司法则是通过划分审判权限和行政性的监督形成对地方司法权的制约。传统司法是具有强烈的国家主义特色的纠问主义诉讼模式,主动追纠犯罪不但是审判官的权利,更是审判官的义务,而且百姓对于某些重大的犯罪也负有告诉的义务。审判官经常以刑讯的方式获取证据,司法极端专横,当事人诉讼地位弱小,无法与强大的司法权相抗衡,司法常造成冤狱泛滥。传统纠问主义诉讼模式与近代西方的司法制度相比较,明显地落后于时代的发展,传统司法所表现的专横和残酷性,被近代西方列强所讥笑。
其次,考察了清末近代司法转型的契机。清末政治、法律的变革是与清政府不断加深的政治危机相联系的,外部西方列强以炮舰政策武力打开清王朝的国门,迫使清政府签订一系列不平等条约,民族矛盾空前激化;国内太平天国起义沉重打击和削弱了清朝政府的实力;在经历了“辛丑之乱”后,各省督抚已经看到清王朝的腐败无能,并对清中央政府产生了明显的离心倾向;领事裁判权等治外法权使满清政府的法律威严不在,加深了清王朝的统治危机。清廷无法按照原来的方式统治下去,被迫宣布实行“新政”,而清末“新政”的实施, 为我国传统司法制度向近代转变提供了必要的前提条件。
第二章,清末英美法系诉讼模式的探索
鉴于英国当时是世界上最强大国家,是第一个以武力打开清政府国门的西方列强,其在政治、经济和法律文化方面对近代中国产生很大的影响,英国的法律
中国政法大学博士学位论文 清末诉讼模式的演进
2
制度成为清末修律首选的模范目标。光绪三十二年四月初二日修律大臣沈家本、
吴廷芳仿照英美法系的司法制度,起草了我国近代第一部诉讼法典——《大清刑
事民事诉讼法草案》,规定了“当事人弹劾主义”诉讼结构模式,法庭审判采用抗
辩式的审理程序,引进西方的陪审制度和律师制度,体现了英美法系国家程序之
上的法治精神,《草案》以西方“民主、自由、平等、人权”的思想为指导,废除
刑讯制度以及侵犯当事人人格尊严的跪告制度,彻底否定了传统纠问主义诉讼模
式。由于《草案》具有强烈的民主和自由色彩,遭到以张之洞为代表的各地督抚
将军等守旧派的强烈反对,他们指责《草案》的立法指导思想违背了传统的纲常
礼教,与传统中国法律的本原相“乖违”;对于陪审制度和律师制度,他们认为中
国目前人才不备无法实行;他们惧怕《草案》启动中国民众“平权自由”之风气;
另,张之洞主张“先定实体法后定程序法”,否则“骤然通行”,不仅不合法理,而
且“大碍民情风俗”。《草案》所主张的英美法系诉讼模式因遭到守旧派的反对而
搁置,但是《草案》所引发的争论,开启了民智,让国人认识到诉讼法律的价值,
成为我国诉讼法律近代化的先声。
第三章,清末大陆法系诉讼模式的确立
随着国内政治局势的发展,清廷决定仿行日本的“君主立宪”政体,清末的诉
讼立法也转向了以模范日本法律为主的大陆法系诉讼模式。除政治因素之外,大
陆法系的司法奉行国家主义,在刑事诉讼结构模式上主要由检察代表国家对犯罪
进行侦查、提出控诉,审判官依职权主动调查,与中国传统纠问主义诉讼模式有
某些契合,最终,清末的诉讼程序选择了模仿大陆法系的“国家弹劾主义”诉讼模
式。《大理院审判编制法》的颁布标志着传统诉讼模式的解体,《各级审判厅试办
章程》、《法院编制法》等法规的施行,为新式审判付诸实践提供了依据。清末新
式审判引进了西方检察制度、民事刑事案件分理制度、刑事预审制度、四级三审
制度、审判公开和回避、审判合议等诉讼制度,新式审判改变了传统审判官集侦
查、起诉、审判为一体的纠问式诉讼模式,诉讼法从传统“诸法合体”的编纂体
例中分离出来,诉讼程序法律表现出独立的价值,启动了我国诉讼法律向近代转
变的进程,在中国法制史上具有重要的意义。
第四章,清末诉讼模式研究
清末所构建的诉讼模式,与西方大陆法系“国家弹劾主义”诉讼模式相比较,
仍然存在严重的缺陷,并没有形成西方大陆法系国家“控、辩、审”互相制衡的三
角形诉讼模式,而是形成了检察官与审判官分工合作,共同对付被告的“倒三角
形”的诉讼结构。从新式审判的运行机制看,检察官制度过分发达,控方的功能
强大,检察官兼有侦查、起诉和监督审判的功能,超越了其诉讼地位,侵越了审
判权的正常行使;而辩方的诉讼地位弱小,与控方处于不平等的诉讼地位,根本
The legislation endeavors in the late Qing Dynasty marked the beginning of a transition From traditional Chinese legal system to a modern one. Though mainly done by transplanting foreignstatutes, the legislation caused essential changes to the judicial system. From modeling on the litigation system of Anglo-American law family to that of the Continental Law family, the legislation on litigation procedure in the late Qing Dynasty went through a long and devious road. Due to the intrinsic characters of legal transplantation, conflicts arose inevitably between foreign system and the local legal culture. In the process of establishing a new legal system, conflicts sparkled between the traditional Chinese judicial conception and modern Western ones with the former imposing impact on the imported western judicial conception and leading to variations. Through research into the litigation patterns established by drawing on various Western systems, the thesis tries to analyze the internal factors behind these variations. Apart from the prelude and conclusion, the thesis consists of four chapters as follows:
Chapter Ⅰ: The traditional Chinese litigation pattern and the reasons for a modern transition.
To begin with, the author expounds on the features and litigation patterns of traditional Chinese judicial system.
Under the traditional judicial system, which was based on a totalitarian political system, division of labor did exist among judges when it came to the exertion of judicial power, but there was a lack of check and balance mechanism between the defendant and the judge. The inquiry-centered litigation pattern was at core in traditional administration of justice, and in terms of judicial trial, the judicial officials would try to gain evidence through extremely peremptory inquiries. Since the litigants were usually on the weak side and could not contend with the judicial power, unjust charges became rampant.
Thereafter, the author analyzes the reasons for the judicial transition in the late
Qing Dynasty.
In the last days of the Qing Dynasty, strong western powers bombarded open the door of the Qing Dynasty with warships, forcing the government to sign a series of unfair treaties, which was followed by unprecedented national and class contradictions. Confronted with the corruption and incompetence of the government, the provincial governors showed apparent divisive tendency. Exterritorialy impaired the dignity and aggravated the crisis of the Qing government. Unable to govern the country in the same way as it did before, the government announced its decision to implement the “New Policy”, which provided the necessary condition for our country’s traditional judicial system to be transited towards a modern Western system.
Chapter Ⅱ: Trials on the litigation pattern of Anglo-American Law System in the Late Qing Dynasty
In view to the significant impacts modern Britain had on the Qing Government, the legal system of the United Kingdom became a preferred option for the latter. On April 2 of the 30th year of Guangxu Reign (1904), Shen Jiaben and Wu Tingfang, the chief law-making officials, wrote the Draft Law on the Criminal and Civil Procedure of the Qing Dynasty under the guidance of modern Western theories of “democracy, freedom, equality and human rights”. The draft embodied the legal spirit of Rule of Law under due procedure of the Common Law System by adopting the “Adversary Impeachment” litigation pattern, introducing a jury system and lawyer system and firmly abolishing forced confession and report on one’s knees in court.
As a result of its strong democracy and freedom flavor, the draft incurred intense objections from the conservatives, including the provincial governors and generals that were headed by Zhang Zhidong, a famous general and governor at that time. They argued that the draft was against both traditional ethnic codes and the roots of traditional Chinese law. They were in fact afraid that the draft might start the “Equal Right and Freedom” vogue among the Chinese “grassroots”. The litigation pattern of the Civil Law System upheld in the draft was hence stranded.
Chapter Ⅲ: The Establishment of the Litigation Pattern of Continental Law System in the Late Qing Dynasty
With the development of domestic political situation, the Qing Government decided to adopt Japanese style of “Constitutional Monarchy”, and the legislation on litigation procedure geared to model on the litigation pattern of Continental Law System, which was then mainly Japanese law. The judicial system under Continental Law System pursues the role of state in litigation. Regarding the structural mode of criminal litigation, procurators work on behalf of the state in conducting investigations and launching lawsuits on crimes, and the judges look into cases in accordance with their authority, which has something in common with the traditional inquiry-centered litigation pattern of China. Following the “State Impeachment” litigation pattern of the Continental Law System, legislation on procedure in the late Qing Dynasty introduced the Western litigation systems. The issuance of the “Ministry of Justice Statute of Trial” marked the collapse of the traditional judicial pattern, and the promulgation of the Interim Trial Procedures for Courts at All Levels and the Law on Court Structure represented the practice of the Western litigation system in China. The new litigation pattern replaced the inquiry-centered one where the judicial officials did all the investigations, indictments and trials, and started the judicial system’s transition towards a modern one, a milestone occurrence in China’s judicial history.
Chapter IV: Research on the Litigation Pattern in the Late Qing Dynasty
According to the author, the Judicial Litigation Pattern established in the Late Qing Dynasty, compared with the “State Impeachment” litigation pattern of the Continental Law System, had serious drawbacks. To begin with, the procurator system was over-strong, and the prosecuting party was too powerful. The procurators, who did the investigation, indictment, and supervision over trial at the same time, overstepped his right as the litigant, while in comparison the defending party was too weak. The fact that the judges were too authoritative might cause a lack of democracy, while the incomplete security system on the judges’ officialdom might interfere with the independent exertion of judicial power, which could lead to the tendency towards favoring the prosecutor. Instead of forming the triangular litigation pattern of the Continental Law System, where “the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge” check each other, the Qing Government had in fact worked out the “inversed-triangle” litigation pattern, where the procurator and the judge might work together against the
defendant. This constitutes a deviation from the inherent values pursued by the litigation pattern of the civil law system.
Three points explain this phenomenon. First, there was no systematic planning on the litigation systems and proper guiding ideology which led to the randomicity in legislation on litigation system; second, the dual character of the conservatives towards judicial reform. In a time of a national crisis, the Qing Imperial Court and the provincial officials with substantial powers wanted reform for survival. However, when it came down to harming their privileges and interests, their conservation and obstinacy began to emerge. The last one comes to the difference between Chinese and Western laws. Transplanted in the context of traditional Chinese ideology, the western litigation system would inevitably be distorted.
The development of the legislation on litigation has left a precious legal legacy for the coming generations. As the author summarizes in the end: to actively push forward the reform on political system is the premise to a successful judicial reform, while the impact of local legal culture can not be ignored in transplanting Western laws.
第一章,中国传统司法的诉讼模式与近代转型的契机
本章首先考察我国传统司法的制约机制及其诉讼结构模式。传统司法制度是建立在专制的政治体制之上,存在着与西方完全不同的内控约束机制,中央各机关采用审判权多元化的制约机制,而地方司法则是通过划分审判权限和行政性的监督形成对地方司法权的制约。传统司法是具有强烈的国家主义特色的纠问主义诉讼模式,主动追纠犯罪不但是审判官的权利,更是审判官的义务,而且百姓对于某些重大的犯罪也负有告诉的义务。审判官经常以刑讯的方式获取证据,司法极端专横,当事人诉讼地位弱小,无法与强大的司法权相抗衡,司法常造成冤狱泛滥。传统纠问主义诉讼模式与近代西方的司法制度相比较,明显地落后于时代的发展,传统司法所表现的专横和残酷性,被近代西方列强所讥笑。
其次,考察了清末近代司法转型的契机。清末政治、法律的变革是与清政府不断加深的政治危机相联系的,外部西方列强以炮舰政策武力打开清王朝的国门,迫使清政府签订一系列不平等条约,民族矛盾空前激化;国内太平天国起义沉重打击和削弱了清朝政府的实力;在经历了“辛丑之乱”后,各省督抚已经看到清王朝的腐败无能,并对清中央政府产生了明显的离心倾向;领事裁判权等治外法权使满清政府的法律威严不在,加深了清王朝的统治危机。清廷无法按照原来的方式统治下去,被迫宣布实行“新政”,而清末“新政”的实施, 为我国传统司法制度向近代转变提供了必要的前提条件。
第二章,清末英美法系诉讼模式的探索
鉴于英国当时是世界上最强大国家,是第一个以武力打开清政府国门的西方列强,其在政治、经济和法律文化方面对近代中国产生很大的影响,英国的法律
中国政法大学博士学位论文 清末诉讼模式的演进
2
制度成为清末修律首选的模范目标。光绪三十二年四月初二日修律大臣沈家本、
吴廷芳仿照英美法系的司法制度,起草了我国近代第一部诉讼法典——《大清刑
事民事诉讼法草案》,规定了“当事人弹劾主义”诉讼结构模式,法庭审判采用抗
辩式的审理程序,引进西方的陪审制度和律师制度,体现了英美法系国家程序之
上的法治精神,《草案》以西方“民主、自由、平等、人权”的思想为指导,废除
刑讯制度以及侵犯当事人人格尊严的跪告制度,彻底否定了传统纠问主义诉讼模
式。由于《草案》具有强烈的民主和自由色彩,遭到以张之洞为代表的各地督抚
将军等守旧派的强烈反对,他们指责《草案》的立法指导思想违背了传统的纲常
礼教,与传统中国法律的本原相“乖违”;对于陪审制度和律师制度,他们认为中
国目前人才不备无法实行;他们惧怕《草案》启动中国民众“平权自由”之风气;
另,张之洞主张“先定实体法后定程序法”,否则“骤然通行”,不仅不合法理,而
且“大碍民情风俗”。《草案》所主张的英美法系诉讼模式因遭到守旧派的反对而
搁置,但是《草案》所引发的争论,开启了民智,让国人认识到诉讼法律的价值,
成为我国诉讼法律近代化的先声。
第三章,清末大陆法系诉讼模式的确立
随着国内政治局势的发展,清廷决定仿行日本的“君主立宪”政体,清末的诉
讼立法也转向了以模范日本法律为主的大陆法系诉讼模式。除政治因素之外,大
陆法系的司法奉行国家主义,在刑事诉讼结构模式上主要由检察代表国家对犯罪
进行侦查、提出控诉,审判官依职权主动调查,与中国传统纠问主义诉讼模式有
某些契合,最终,清末的诉讼程序选择了模仿大陆法系的“国家弹劾主义”诉讼模
式。《大理院审判编制法》的颁布标志着传统诉讼模式的解体,《各级审判厅试办
章程》、《法院编制法》等法规的施行,为新式审判付诸实践提供了依据。清末新
式审判引进了西方检察制度、民事刑事案件分理制度、刑事预审制度、四级三审
制度、审判公开和回避、审判合议等诉讼制度,新式审判改变了传统审判官集侦
查、起诉、审判为一体的纠问式诉讼模式,诉讼法从传统“诸法合体”的编纂体
例中分离出来,诉讼程序法律表现出独立的价值,启动了我国诉讼法律向近代转
变的进程,在中国法制史上具有重要的意义。
第四章,清末诉讼模式研究
清末所构建的诉讼模式,与西方大陆法系“国家弹劾主义”诉讼模式相比较,
仍然存在严重的缺陷,并没有形成西方大陆法系国家“控、辩、审”互相制衡的三
角形诉讼模式,而是形成了检察官与审判官分工合作,共同对付被告的“倒三角
形”的诉讼结构。从新式审判的运行机制看,检察官制度过分发达,控方的功能
强大,检察官兼有侦查、起诉和监督审判的功能,超越了其诉讼地位,侵越了审
判权的正常行使;而辩方的诉讼地位弱小,与控方处于不平等的诉讼地位,根本
The legislation endeavors in the late Qing Dynasty marked the beginning of a transition From traditional Chinese legal system to a modern one. Though mainly done by transplanting foreignstatutes, the legislation caused essential changes to the judicial system. From modeling on the litigation system of Anglo-American law family to that of the Continental Law family, the legislation on litigation procedure in the late Qing Dynasty went through a long and devious road. Due to the intrinsic characters of legal transplantation, conflicts arose inevitably between foreign system and the local legal culture. In the process of establishing a new legal system, conflicts sparkled between the traditional Chinese judicial conception and modern Western ones with the former imposing impact on the imported western judicial conception and leading to variations. Through research into the litigation patterns established by drawing on various Western systems, the thesis tries to analyze the internal factors behind these variations. Apart from the prelude and conclusion, the thesis consists of four chapters as follows:
Chapter Ⅰ: The traditional Chinese litigation pattern and the reasons for a modern transition.
To begin with, the author expounds on the features and litigation patterns of traditional Chinese judicial system.
Under the traditional judicial system, which was based on a totalitarian political system, division of labor did exist among judges when it came to the exertion of judicial power, but there was a lack of check and balance mechanism between the defendant and the judge. The inquiry-centered litigation pattern was at core in traditional administration of justice, and in terms of judicial trial, the judicial officials would try to gain evidence through extremely peremptory inquiries. Since the litigants were usually on the weak side and could not contend with the judicial power, unjust charges became rampant.
Thereafter, the author analyzes the reasons for the judicial transition in the late
Qing Dynasty.
In the last days of the Qing Dynasty, strong western powers bombarded open the door of the Qing Dynasty with warships, forcing the government to sign a series of unfair treaties, which was followed by unprecedented national and class contradictions. Confronted with the corruption and incompetence of the government, the provincial governors showed apparent divisive tendency. Exterritorialy impaired the dignity and aggravated the crisis of the Qing government. Unable to govern the country in the same way as it did before, the government announced its decision to implement the “New Policy”, which provided the necessary condition for our country’s traditional judicial system to be transited towards a modern Western system.
Chapter Ⅱ: Trials on the litigation pattern of Anglo-American Law System in the Late Qing Dynasty
In view to the significant impacts modern Britain had on the Qing Government, the legal system of the United Kingdom became a preferred option for the latter. On April 2 of the 30th year of Guangxu Reign (1904), Shen Jiaben and Wu Tingfang, the chief law-making officials, wrote the Draft Law on the Criminal and Civil Procedure of the Qing Dynasty under the guidance of modern Western theories of “democracy, freedom, equality and human rights”. The draft embodied the legal spirit of Rule of Law under due procedure of the Common Law System by adopting the “Adversary Impeachment” litigation pattern, introducing a jury system and lawyer system and firmly abolishing forced confession and report on one’s knees in court.
As a result of its strong democracy and freedom flavor, the draft incurred intense objections from the conservatives, including the provincial governors and generals that were headed by Zhang Zhidong, a famous general and governor at that time. They argued that the draft was against both traditional ethnic codes and the roots of traditional Chinese law. They were in fact afraid that the draft might start the “Equal Right and Freedom” vogue among the Chinese “grassroots”. The litigation pattern of the Civil Law System upheld in the draft was hence stranded.
Chapter Ⅲ: The Establishment of the Litigation Pattern of Continental Law System in the Late Qing Dynasty
With the development of domestic political situation, the Qing Government decided to adopt Japanese style of “Constitutional Monarchy”, and the legislation on litigation procedure geared to model on the litigation pattern of Continental Law System, which was then mainly Japanese law. The judicial system under Continental Law System pursues the role of state in litigation. Regarding the structural mode of criminal litigation, procurators work on behalf of the state in conducting investigations and launching lawsuits on crimes, and the judges look into cases in accordance with their authority, which has something in common with the traditional inquiry-centered litigation pattern of China. Following the “State Impeachment” litigation pattern of the Continental Law System, legislation on procedure in the late Qing Dynasty introduced the Western litigation systems. The issuance of the “Ministry of Justice Statute of Trial” marked the collapse of the traditional judicial pattern, and the promulgation of the Interim Trial Procedures for Courts at All Levels and the Law on Court Structure represented the practice of the Western litigation system in China. The new litigation pattern replaced the inquiry-centered one where the judicial officials did all the investigations, indictments and trials, and started the judicial system’s transition towards a modern one, a milestone occurrence in China’s judicial history.
Chapter IV: Research on the Litigation Pattern in the Late Qing Dynasty
According to the author, the Judicial Litigation Pattern established in the Late Qing Dynasty, compared with the “State Impeachment” litigation pattern of the Continental Law System, had serious drawbacks. To begin with, the procurator system was over-strong, and the prosecuting party was too powerful. The procurators, who did the investigation, indictment, and supervision over trial at the same time, overstepped his right as the litigant, while in comparison the defending party was too weak. The fact that the judges were too authoritative might cause a lack of democracy, while the incomplete security system on the judges’ officialdom might interfere with the independent exertion of judicial power, which could lead to the tendency towards favoring the prosecutor. Instead of forming the triangular litigation pattern of the Continental Law System, where “the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge” check each other, the Qing Government had in fact worked out the “inversed-triangle” litigation pattern, where the procurator and the judge might work together against the
defendant. This constitutes a deviation from the inherent values pursued by the litigation pattern of the civil law system.
Three points explain this phenomenon. First, there was no systematic planning on the litigation systems and proper guiding ideology which led to the randomicity in legislation on litigation system; second, the dual character of the conservatives towards judicial reform. In a time of a national crisis, the Qing Imperial Court and the provincial officials with substantial powers wanted reform for survival. However, when it came down to harming their privileges and interests, their conservation and obstinacy began to emerge. The last one comes to the difference between Chinese and Western laws. Transplanted in the context of traditional Chinese ideology, the western litigation system would inevitably be distorted.
The development of the legislation on litigation has left a precious legal legacy for the coming generations. As the author summarizes in the end: to actively push forward the reform on political system is the premise to a successful judicial reform, while the impact of local legal culture can not be ignored in transplanting Western laws.
引文
1、《大清法规大全》,正学社印行,政法大学图书馆特藏部。
2、《大清法规大全》(续编),正学社印行,政法大学图书馆特藏部。
3、《各省审判厅判牍》(章程类、规则类),法学研究社印行,民国元年,政法大 学图书馆特藏部。
4、《光绪朝东华录》(五),(清)朱寿朋编,张静庐等点校,中华书局 1958 年版。
5、《清实录》,德宗朝,中华书局 1987 年影印本。
6、《清末筹备立宪档案史料》(上、下册)故宫明清档案部,中华书局 1979 年版。
7、《中国历代刑法志注译》,(中国政法大学法律古籍整理研究所),吉林人民出版社。
8、马建石、杨玉裳:《大清律例通考校注》,中国政法大学出版社,1992 年版。
9、樊崇义、夏红编:《正当程序文献资料选编》中国人民公安大学,2004 年版。
10、梁为楫、郑则民主编:《中国近代不平等条约选编与介绍》,中国广播电视出 版社,1993 年版。
11、《上海史料丛刊》(上海租界史稿),上海人民出版社(1980)。
12、杨凤藻编:《皇朝经世文新编续集》,(影印本)[台北]文海出版社,1972 年版。
13、上海宜今室:《皇朝经济文新编》,光绪 27 年(1901 年)。(影印本)[台北]文海出版社,1972 年版。
14、《法政杂志》(清),1911 年。
15、王士森(清):《法院编制法释义》上海 商务印书馆,1910 年。
16、《大清刑事诉讼律草案》(清)沈家本等编,清宣统二年(1910), 。
17、王辑唐撰:《上海租界问题》三篇,上海:商务印书馆,民国 13 年(1924)。
18、丁贤俊、喻作凤:《伍廷芳集》,中华书局,1993 年版。
19、苑书义、孙华峰、李秉新编:《张之洞全集》,河北人民出版社,1998 年版。
1、瞿同祖:《瞿同祖法学论文集》,中国政法大学出版社,2004 年版。
2、梁启超:《梁启超法学文集》(范忠信选编),中国政法大学出版社,2004 年版。
3、杨鸿烈:《中国法律思想史》,中国政法大学出版社,2004 年版。
4、杨鸿烈:《中国法律发达史》,上海书店,1990 年版。
5、朱勇:《中国法制通史》第九卷(清末·中华民国),法律出版社,1999 年版。
6、陈鹏生:《中国法制通史》第四卷(隋·唐),法律出版社,1999 年版。
7、张晋藩:《中国法制通史》第八卷(清),法律出版社,1999 年版。
8、张晋藩:《中国法律的传统与近代转型》,法律出版社,1997 年版。
9、张晋藩:《中华法制文明的演进》,中国政法大学出版社,1999 年版。
10、张晋藩:《中国百年法制大事纵览》,法律出版社,2001 年版。
11、张晋藩主编:《中国司法制度史》,人民法院出版社,2004 年版。
12、[日]冈田朝太郎、松冈正义、小河滋次郎、志田钾太郎(口授),郑言 笔述,蒋士宜 编纂,陈颐 点校:《检察制度》,中国政法大学出版社,2003 年版。
13、[台]黄源盛:《民初法律变迁与裁判》(1912-1928),国立政治大学业书(47),民国八十九年四月初稿。
14、[台]那思陆:《清代中央司法审制度》,文史哲出版社,1992 年初版。
15、[德]拉德布鲁赫(米健、朱林翻译):《法学导论》,中国大百科全书出版社,1997 年版。
16、[日] 河合弘之著:《律师职业》唐树华译,法律出版社 1987 年版。
17、[台]刁荣华:《刑事诉讼法释论》(上、下册),东亚法律业书,汉苑出版社,1977 年再版。
18、[美]H.W. 埃尔曼:《比较法律文化》,贺卫方、高鸿均译,第 158 页,北京三联书店,1990 年版。
19、[英] 霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎延弼译,北京 商务印书馆 1985 年版。
20、[英]亚当·斯密:《富论》(上卷),郭大力、王亚南合译本,上海神州国光社,1931-1932 年。
21、[法]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》张雁深译,北京 商务印书馆,1997 年版。
22、《中国近代史》,(<中国近代史>编写组),中华书局,1983 年版。,
23、郑师渠主编:《中国近代史》,北京师范大学出版社,1994 年版。
24、王哲:《西方政治法律学说史》,北京大学出版社,1988 年版。
25、孙国华:《法理学教程》,中国人民大学出版社,1994 年版。
26、曾宪义主编:《中国法制史》,北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
27、李贵连:《沈家本年谱长编》,台湾成文出版社,1992 年版。
28、梁治平:《法辩》,中国政法大学出版社,2002 年版。
29、梁治平:《法治在中国:制度、话语与实践》,中国政法大学出版社,2002年版。
30、郭成伟主编:《外国法系精神》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版。
31、陈光中、徐益初:《外国刑事诉讼程序比较研究》,法律出版社,1988 年版。
32、程汉大:《英国法制史》,齐鲁书社,2001 年版。
33、何勤华主编:《德国法律发达史》,法律出版社,2000 年版。
34、赵立信:《日本法制现代化之路》,河北人民出版社,2003 年版。
35、王健编:《西法东渐——外国人与中国法的近代变革》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版。
36、韩修桃:《司法独立与近代中国》,清华大学出版社,2003 年版。
37、张德美:《探索与抉择—晚清法律移植研究》,清华大学出版社,2003 年版。
38、李启成:《晚清各级审判厅研究》,北京大学出版社,2004 年版。
39、徐家力、吴运浩:《中国律师制度史》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年版。
40、陈刚主编:《中国民事诉讼法制百年进程》(清末时期第一卷,第二卷),中国法制出版社,2004 年版。
41、张武生等:《司法现代化与民事诉讼制度的构建》,法律出版社,2000 年版。
42、张培田:《法与司法的演进及改革考论》,中国政法大学出版社,2002 年版。
43、张培田:《近现代中国审判检察制度的演变》,中国政法大学出版社,2004年版。
44、汪海燕:《刑事诉讼模式的演进》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2004 年版。
45、张健伟:《刑事司法体制原理》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2002 年版。
46、陈丽君、曾尔恕主编:《外国法律制度史》,中国政法大学出版社,1997 年版。
47、《中西法律传统》(第一、二卷),中南财经大学法律史研究所编, 中国政法大学出版社。2001/2002 年版。
48、张生主编:《中国法律近代化论文集》,中国政法大学出版社,2002 年版。
49、张从容:《晚清司法改革的一个侧面:部院之争》,中国政法大学 2003 届博士论文。
50、李俊:《晚清审判制度变革研究》,中国政法大学 2000 届博士论文。
51、李启成:《领事裁判权制度与晚清司法改革之肇端》,载于:《比较法研究》2003 年第 4 期。
52、[日]石田琢智:《中日法律的近代转型的比较分析》,载于:《政法论坛》,2001年第 6 期。 53、徐忠明:《论中国古代刑事审判传统》,载于:《法理学、法史学》(中国人民大学书报资料中心),2004 年第 6 期。 54、邓建鹏:《健讼与贱讼:两宋以降民事诉讼中的矛盾》,载于:《法理学、法史学》(中国人民大学书报资料中心),2004 年第 4 期。 55、潘家德:《近代外国在华法庭论述》,载于:《四川师范学院学报》, 2001 年3 月。 56、杨丹伟:《近代中国法权交涉的历史考察》,载于:《东方论坛》, 1999 年第4 期。 57、郭志祥:《清末与民国时期的司法独立研究》,载于:《环球法律评论》2002年春季号。 58、张珉:《试论清末与民国时期的司法独立》,载于:《安徽大学学报》,2004年第 28 卷第 3 期。
2、《大清法规大全》(续编),正学社印行,政法大学图书馆特藏部。
3、《各省审判厅判牍》(章程类、规则类),法学研究社印行,民国元年,政法大 学图书馆特藏部。
4、《光绪朝东华录》(五),(清)朱寿朋编,张静庐等点校,中华书局 1958 年版。
5、《清实录》,德宗朝,中华书局 1987 年影印本。
6、《清末筹备立宪档案史料》(上、下册)故宫明清档案部,中华书局 1979 年版。
7、《中国历代刑法志注译》,(中国政法大学法律古籍整理研究所),吉林人民出版社。
8、马建石、杨玉裳:《大清律例通考校注》,中国政法大学出版社,1992 年版。
9、樊崇义、夏红编:《正当程序文献资料选编》中国人民公安大学,2004 年版。
10、梁为楫、郑则民主编:《中国近代不平等条约选编与介绍》,中国广播电视出 版社,1993 年版。
11、《上海史料丛刊》(上海租界史稿),上海人民出版社(1980)。
12、杨凤藻编:《皇朝经世文新编续集》,(影印本)[台北]文海出版社,1972 年版。
13、上海宜今室:《皇朝经济文新编》,光绪 27 年(1901 年)。(影印本)[台北]文海出版社,1972 年版。
14、《法政杂志》(清),1911 年。
15、王士森(清):《法院编制法释义》上海 商务印书馆,1910 年。
16、《大清刑事诉讼律草案》(清)沈家本等编,清宣统二年(1910), 。
17、王辑唐撰:《上海租界问题》三篇,上海:商务印书馆,民国 13 年(1924)。
18、丁贤俊、喻作凤:《伍廷芳集》,中华书局,1993 年版。
19、苑书义、孙华峰、李秉新编:《张之洞全集》,河北人民出版社,1998 年版。
1、瞿同祖:《瞿同祖法学论文集》,中国政法大学出版社,2004 年版。
2、梁启超:《梁启超法学文集》(范忠信选编),中国政法大学出版社,2004 年版。
3、杨鸿烈:《中国法律思想史》,中国政法大学出版社,2004 年版。
4、杨鸿烈:《中国法律发达史》,上海书店,1990 年版。
5、朱勇:《中国法制通史》第九卷(清末·中华民国),法律出版社,1999 年版。
6、陈鹏生:《中国法制通史》第四卷(隋·唐),法律出版社,1999 年版。
7、张晋藩:《中国法制通史》第八卷(清),法律出版社,1999 年版。
8、张晋藩:《中国法律的传统与近代转型》,法律出版社,1997 年版。
9、张晋藩:《中华法制文明的演进》,中国政法大学出版社,1999 年版。
10、张晋藩:《中国百年法制大事纵览》,法律出版社,2001 年版。
11、张晋藩主编:《中国司法制度史》,人民法院出版社,2004 年版。
12、[日]冈田朝太郎、松冈正义、小河滋次郎、志田钾太郎(口授),郑言 笔述,蒋士宜 编纂,陈颐 点校:《检察制度》,中国政法大学出版社,2003 年版。
13、[台]黄源盛:《民初法律变迁与裁判》(1912-1928),国立政治大学业书(47),民国八十九年四月初稿。
14、[台]那思陆:《清代中央司法审制度》,文史哲出版社,1992 年初版。
15、[德]拉德布鲁赫(米健、朱林翻译):《法学导论》,中国大百科全书出版社,1997 年版。
16、[日] 河合弘之著:《律师职业》唐树华译,法律出版社 1987 年版。
17、[台]刁荣华:《刑事诉讼法释论》(上、下册),东亚法律业书,汉苑出版社,1977 年再版。
18、[美]H.W. 埃尔曼:《比较法律文化》,贺卫方、高鸿均译,第 158 页,北京三联书店,1990 年版。
19、[英] 霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎延弼译,北京 商务印书馆 1985 年版。
20、[英]亚当·斯密:《富论》(上卷),郭大力、王亚南合译本,上海神州国光社,1931-1932 年。
21、[法]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》张雁深译,北京 商务印书馆,1997 年版。
22、《中国近代史》,(<中国近代史>编写组),中华书局,1983 年版。,
23、郑师渠主编:《中国近代史》,北京师范大学出版社,1994 年版。
24、王哲:《西方政治法律学说史》,北京大学出版社,1988 年版。
25、孙国华:《法理学教程》,中国人民大学出版社,1994 年版。
26、曾宪义主编:《中国法制史》,北京大学出版社,2000 年版。
27、李贵连:《沈家本年谱长编》,台湾成文出版社,1992 年版。
28、梁治平:《法辩》,中国政法大学出版社,2002 年版。
29、梁治平:《法治在中国:制度、话语与实践》,中国政法大学出版社,2002年版。
30、郭成伟主编:《外国法系精神》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版。
31、陈光中、徐益初:《外国刑事诉讼程序比较研究》,法律出版社,1988 年版。
32、程汉大:《英国法制史》,齐鲁书社,2001 年版。
33、何勤华主编:《德国法律发达史》,法律出版社,2000 年版。
34、赵立信:《日本法制现代化之路》,河北人民出版社,2003 年版。
35、王健编:《西法东渐——外国人与中国法的近代变革》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版。
36、韩修桃:《司法独立与近代中国》,清华大学出版社,2003 年版。
37、张德美:《探索与抉择—晚清法律移植研究》,清华大学出版社,2003 年版。
38、李启成:《晚清各级审判厅研究》,北京大学出版社,2004 年版。
39、徐家力、吴运浩:《中国律师制度史》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年版。
40、陈刚主编:《中国民事诉讼法制百年进程》(清末时期第一卷,第二卷),中国法制出版社,2004 年版。
41、张武生等:《司法现代化与民事诉讼制度的构建》,法律出版社,2000 年版。
42、张培田:《法与司法的演进及改革考论》,中国政法大学出版社,2002 年版。
43、张培田:《近现代中国审判检察制度的演变》,中国政法大学出版社,2004年版。
44、汪海燕:《刑事诉讼模式的演进》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2004 年版。
45、张健伟:《刑事司法体制原理》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2002 年版。
46、陈丽君、曾尔恕主编:《外国法律制度史》,中国政法大学出版社,1997 年版。
47、《中西法律传统》(第一、二卷),中南财经大学法律史研究所编, 中国政法大学出版社。2001/2002 年版。
48、张生主编:《中国法律近代化论文集》,中国政法大学出版社,2002 年版。
49、张从容:《晚清司法改革的一个侧面:部院之争》,中国政法大学 2003 届博士论文。
50、李俊:《晚清审判制度变革研究》,中国政法大学 2000 届博士论文。
51、李启成:《领事裁判权制度与晚清司法改革之肇端》,载于:《比较法研究》2003 年第 4 期。
52、[日]石田琢智:《中日法律的近代转型的比较分析》,载于:《政法论坛》,2001年第 6 期。 53、徐忠明:《论中国古代刑事审判传统》,载于:《法理学、法史学》(中国人民大学书报资料中心),2004 年第 6 期。 54、邓建鹏:《健讼与贱讼:两宋以降民事诉讼中的矛盾》,载于:《法理学、法史学》(中国人民大学书报资料中心),2004 年第 4 期。 55、潘家德:《近代外国在华法庭论述》,载于:《四川师范学院学报》, 2001 年3 月。 56、杨丹伟:《近代中国法权交涉的历史考察》,载于:《东方论坛》, 1999 年第4 期。 57、郭志祥:《清末与民国时期的司法独立研究》,载于:《环球法律评论》2002年春季号。 58、张珉:《试论清末与民国时期的司法独立》,载于:《安徽大学学报》,2004年第 28 卷第 3 期。