刑事诉讼管辖异议制度之探索

Exploration on the Objection System of Criminal Procedure Jurisdiction

摘要: 我国1997年刑事诉法以及之后的三次刑诉法修正(1996年、2012年、2018年)均未对管辖异议作出相关规定。司法实践中，无论是案件当事人还是代理人均有提出管辖异议的需求，但鉴于我国现行的程序法并未涉及到管辖异议的处置条文，法院多以无法律规定而驳回诉求。这与我国法律制度构建的内在逻辑相违背，侵犯了当事人的诉讼参与权，不利于程序正义的实现。我国立法关于刑事诉讼管辖异议的规定仍处于缺失状态，进而发生当事人提出管辖异议的基本诉求与权利救济未能获得尊重。诉讼理论基本内涵与程序正义的分配，使得诉权导入刑事诉讼管辖异议制度有其正当性和现实性。基于此，参照其他国家或地区的刑事诉讼管辖异议，可将刑事诉讼管辖异议主体确定为当事人，管辖异议受理对象为法院、检察院，管辖异议处理结果根据具体案件作出符合立法精神的裁判。

Abstract: The Criminal Procedure Law of China in 1997 and the subsequent three amendments to the Crimi-nal Procedure Law (1996, 2012, 2018) did not provide relevant provisions for jurisdictional objections. In judicial practice, both parties and agents in the case have a need to raise jurisdictional objections. However, given that the current procedural law in China does not involve provisions for handling jurisdictional objections, courts often reject claims without legal provisions. This goes against the inherent logic of China’s legal system construction, infringes on the parties’ right to participate in litigation, and is not conducive to the realization of procedural justice. The provisions on jurisdictional objections to criminal proceedings in China’s legislation are in a blank state, resulting in the failure to respect the basic demands and rights remedies of parties who raise jurisdictional objections. The basic connotation of litigation theory and the distribution of procedural justice make the introduction of litigation rights into the criminal litigation jurisdiction objection system legitimate and realistic. Based on this, referring to the objection to criminal litigation jurisdiction in other countries or regions, the subject of objection to criminal litigation jurisdiction can be determined as the party, and the object of objection to jurisdiction is the court or procuratorate. The outcome of objection to jurisdiction shall be determined based on the specific case and in accordance with the spirit of legislation.