论文部分内容阅读
李汉章在《关于个案监督工作的思考》一文中认为,人大在开展个案监督中,必须明确个案监督的含义和范围,国家权力机关是监督主体,行政司法机关是监督客体,这种监督与被监督的关系是法定的,而且伴随国家法制运行过程的始终,从这个意义上说,人大的监督不应有事前、事后之分,也不能与“干涉”相提并论,因为“干涉”是指非监督主体的越权行为。但是,人大的监督虽不分事前事后,却可分不同的阶段和采用不同的形式。仅就个案监督这一特定形式来说,还是“事后监督”为好,因为其定义比较
In his article “Thinking on Case Supervision,” Li Hanzhang held: In carrying out case supervision, the NPC must clearly define the meaning and scope of case supervision. State organs of power are the main body of supervision. The administrative and judicial organs are the objects of supervision. Such supervision and oversight In the sense that the supervision of the NPC should not be divided ex ante and ex post, nor should it be compared with the “interference” because “interference” is Refers to the non-supervisory body of ultra vires. However, the people’s congressional oversight can be divided into different stages and take different forms, though without any excuse. Just for the specific case of case supervision, it is better to be “supervised” because of its definitional comparison