part 3, the development of the criminal judicial precedent system, which observed and studied the development of the criminal judicial precedent system in the continental law system country, common law system country and china, so as to laid down the foundation for deeply knowing criminal judicial precedent of our time 第三部分,刑事判例的歷史演進(jìn)。該部分考察了英美法系、大陸法系及中國(guó)刑事判例的歷史演變,為進(jìn)一步認(rèn)識(shí)當(dāng)代的刑事判例奠定了基礎(chǔ)。
the essay inquired into the philosophical basis, the value included and future destiny of the criminal judicial precedent, then talked over the relation among the judicial precedent, the criminal judicial precedent and judicial interpretation of criminal law, ultimately, put forward to the basic frame and external conditions of criminal judicial precedent set up thoroughly in china, through the comparative study on history, the current situation and the way of operation of criminal judicial precedent system of the continental law system country, common law system country and china 本文通過對(duì)兩大法系及中國(guó)刑事判例制度的歷史、現(xiàn)狀和運(yùn)作方式的比較,探討了刑事判例制度的哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)和價(jià)值蘊(yùn)涵及未來走向,并對(duì)刑事判例制度和我國(guó)罪刑法定原則及刑事司法解釋的關(guān)系進(jìn)行了討論,提出了建立我國(guó)刑事判例制度的基本框架和外部條件。
we draw a basic conclusion by comparing that, in spite of the obvious differences between the major legal systems, for example, common law system countries carry out single-level boards, it's only the board of directors that shareholders empower the executive rights; germany is typical of civil law system countries in which two-level board has been implemented . that's to say, board of directors and supervisory board subordinate to shareholder's meeting 通過比較得出的基本結(jié)論是:現(xiàn)代公司治理結(jié)構(gòu)的兩大法系盡管存在顯著差異,英美法系實(shí)行“單層制”,股東大會(huì)只設(shè)董事會(huì)作為業(yè)務(wù)執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu);而大陸法系,以德國(guó)為代表,實(shí)行“雙層制”,即股東大會(huì)下設(shè)董事會(huì)和監(jiān)事會(huì),監(jiān)事會(huì)作為董事會(huì)的垂直領(lǐng)導(dǎo)機(jī)關(guān);而日本則在股東大會(huì)下設(shè)置董事會(huì)和監(jiān)事會(huì)平行的兩機(jī)關(guān)。