:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:中國大陸刑事訴訟法辯護權修正之探討
書刊名:遠景基金會季刊
作者:張明偉 引用關係
作者(外文):Chang, Ming-woei
出版日期:2012
卷期:13:3
頁次:頁95-124
主題關鍵詞:辯護權刑事訴訟法捕竊制度兩造對抗制度律師守秘特權Right to counselCriminal procedure codeProfessional thief catchersAdversary systemAttorney-client privilege
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:26
辯護權為刑事被告之重要權利,其保障可為刑事訴訟現代化之指標。雖中國大陸2012年刑事訴訟法之修正已朝人權保障目標邁出大步,值得肯定,惟其保障程度,仍與臺灣地區所累積之法制成果有一段差距。本文探討中國大陸有關辯護權之修正後,主張雙方應循兩會協商途徑,就兩岸人民涉及刑事案件時之辯護權保障另訂協議,以期臺灣人民在中國大陸涉案時能受到更完整的權利保障;亦可依國際公約與平等互惠原則,要求符合我方法制之保障。
The right to counsel is a fundamental issue regarding the protection of human rights. How a country protects the right to counsel reflects its civilization. Although the PRC amended its Criminal Procedure Code in 2012, and the protection of the right to counsel has seen improvement, there still exists a gap between the PRC and the ROC. After reviewing the 2012 amendments to the PRC Criminal Procedure Code in regard to the right to counsel, this study suggests that the ROC government should request that the Cross-Strait Anti-Criminal Cooperation Agreement be revised to protect the right to counsel of the Taiwanese people when involved in the criminal process in China. Before the Agreement is revised, the ROC government should ask the PRC authorities to provide Taiwanese criminal defendants the same degree of protection in terms of the right to counsel as they would receive in Taiwan.
期刊論文
1.Landsman, Stephan(1990)。The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England。Cornell Law Review,75(2),497-609。  new window
2.黃朝義(20071000)。重新建構偵查中辯護權問題。律師雜誌,337,60-70。  延伸查詢new window
3.邱忠義(200903)。辯護權及其界限--兼論釋字第六五四號解釋之因應。全國律師,13(3),37-55。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.林彥光(2010)。中國大陸刑事辯護制度之研究(碩士論文)。東吳大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.張麗卿(201309)。刑事訴訟法理論與運用。台北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
2.王兆鵬(2010)。刑事訴訟法講義。元照。  延伸查詢new window
3.黃朝義(200609)。刑事訴訟法。台北:一品文化出版社。  延伸查詢new window
4.Kamisar, Yale、Lafave, Wayne R.、Israel, Jerold H.、King, Nancy(1999)。Modern Criminal Procedure。Minnesota:West Group。  new window
5.全國人大常委會法制工作委員會刑法室(201203)。關于修改中華人民共和國刑事訴訟法的決定-條文說明、立法理由及相關規定。北京:北京大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
6.林鈺雄(2007)。刑事訴訟法。臺北:元照出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
7.陳光中(2003)。刑事訴訟法。北京:北京大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
8.陳光中、徐靜村(2001)。刑事訴訟法學。北京:中國政法大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
9.黃永盛、陳立(2003)。刑事訴訟法學。廈門:廈門大學出版社。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.(19501104)。歐洲人權公約,http://www.cahr.org.tw/lawdan_detail.php?nid=105, 1950/11/04。  new window
2.(20120816)。世界人權宣言,http://www.un.org/zh/documents/udhr/, 2012/08/16。  new window
3.尤伯祥(20090109)。公平審判從確實保障律師的辯護空間開始,http://www.jrf.org.tw/newjrf/RTE/myform_detail.asp?id=2314, 2009/01/09。  延伸查詢new window
4.吳景欽(20091223)。兩岸共同打擊犯罪協議的盲點,http://www.nownews.com/2009/12/23/142-2549741.htm#ixzz1cdQvkZ9k, 2009/12/23。  延伸查詢new window
5.南方日報(20110930)。陳世幸:刑訴法大修草案值得商榷之處,http://theory.people.com.cn/BIG5/15795231.html, 2011/09/30。  延伸查詢new window
6.南方日報(20070406)。有關專家談刑事訴訟法再修改,http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2007-04/06/content_5942280.htm, 2007/04/06。  new window
7.蘇友辰(20071121)。「司法浩劫」言重了,http://www.cahr.org.tw/lawtalk_detail.php?nid=231, 2007/12/21。  new window
8.United States Supreme Court(19321117)。Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45。  new window
9.United States Supreme Court(19630318)。Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335。  new window
10.United States Supreme Court(19640518)。Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201。  new window
11.United States Supreme Court(19840514)。Strickland v. Washington, 466U.S. 668。  new window
圖書論文
1.褚劍鴻(1984)。論刑事訴訟法偵查中得選任辯護人及司法警察約談與緊急拘提權之修訂。刑事訴訟法論文選輯。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE