民事审执分离的内涵及其模式选择

Connotation and Mode Selection of Separation of Civil Adjudication and Enforcement

摘要: 现阶段深化审执分离改革是破解“执行难”、健全国家民事执行体制的核心举措，但当前审执分离仅为政策性概括表述，学界对其内涵边界与实施路径尚未形成统一共识，难以有效指导司法实践。文章以民事执行权的司法权属性为基础，依托执行实施权与执行裁决权二分结构，厘清审判权与执行裁决权的差异，明晰审执分离多层制度内涵。同时，引入法国、美国两大法系典型执行体制开展比较法研究，结合典型案例与试点实证数据剖析权力界分的实务难题，系统研判国内三类主流改革模式的适配性，批判性梳理改革衍生的制度风险并搭建配套保障机制，旨在明晰改革逻辑、夯实理论支撑，助力我国现代化民事执行体制规范高效运行。

Abstract: At this stage, deepening the reform of the separation of trial and execution powers serves as a core measure to resolve the “difficulty of civil enforcement” and improve the national civil enforcement system. However, the current separation of trial and execution powers is merely a policy-based general statement, and no unified academic consensus has been reached on its connotation, boundary, and implementation path, which undermines its guiding value for judicial practice. Based on the judicial power attribute of civil enforcement power and adopting the binary structure of enforcement implementation power and enforcement adjudication power, this paper clarifies the differences between trial power and enforcement adjudication power, and defines the multi-level institutional connotation of the separation of trial and execution powers. It conducts a comparative law study on the typical enforcement systems of France and the United States, representing two major legal families, analyzes practical dilemmas in the boundary division of powers through typical judicial cases and empirical data of pilot courts, and systematically evaluates the adaptability of three mainstream domestic reform models. Furthermore, it critically sorts out the institutional risks arising from the reform and constructs supporting guarantee mechanisms, aiming to clarify the reform logic, consolidate theoretical support, and facilitate the standardized and efficient operation of China’s modern civil enforcement system.