【作者】 陆永胜；

【导师】 杨海坤；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 违宪审查司法化的命题,近几年在我国宪法学界被广泛讨论,但涵义多种多样,极不统一。笔者认为,违宪审查的司法化是指违宪审查的各个环节有向司法性质和司法状态转化的趋向,而不仅仅局限于违宪审查主体的司法化。从世界宪政的历史和立法机关审查制缺乏实效的状况来看,违宪审查的司法化有其必然性,主要有两种模式,即美国式的司法审查和欧陆式的特设机构审查,当然两者各有利弊。在我国,由于传统政治理念和体制的束缚,理论认识上的误区及宪法自身规范性的缺失,阻碍了我国违宪审查司法化的进程,我们必须消除理论和体制上的局限,遵循渐进性、经济性和有效性的原则,注重实践积累,逐步推动我国违宪审查的各个环节向司法化的方向发展,从而不再使宪法深藏闺中,而是实实在在地行走在人们的生活中。更多还原

【Abstract】 The propostion of Judicialization of constitutional review, have various concepts though, are researched broadly in Chinese constitutional academia in recent years. Judicialization of constitutional review means that every aspects of constitutional review tend to got feature and state of judiciary, which include the judicialization of the organ of constitutional review. There are two model of judicialization of constitutional review in global history of constitutionalism. One is U.S. style that reviewed by court, another is Europe style that reviewed by special organ. Each has pros and cons. However, in respect that the system of legislature review lacks efficiency, constitutional review is bound to judicialization. In China, due to the bondage from traditional political theory and system, the theoretical misunderstanding and the lack of normative feature in Constitution are stand in the way of judicialization of constitutional review. We ought to clear off the limitation in theory and system, to comply the principle of gradual, economy and efficiency, to take accumulation of experience into account and to develop gradually all elements of constitutional review system in China into judicialization. As a result, Constitution would be a real and live constitution in China.更多还原