中美司法制度比较英语
中美法学教育的异同英语作文
中美法学教育的异同In the realm of legal education, China and the United States exhibit both similarities and significant differences. Understanding these disparities is crucial for legal professionals, scholars, and students alike, as it can inform cross-cultural legal practices and foster a deeper understanding of the global legal landscape.**Curricular Structure**Both China and the United States have a core curriculum that covers the basics of law, such as constitutional law, criminal law, and civil procedure. However, the approach and emphasis within these courses differ. In the United States, legal education is highly specialized, with students often specializing in a particular area of law such as corporate law, environmental law, or tax law. In contrast, Chinese law schools tend to have a moregeneralist approach, with students studying a broad range of legal disciplines before specializing in a specific area during their postgraduate studies.**Teaching Methodology**In terms of teaching methodology, American law schools are known for their interactive and participatory classrooms. The "Socratic method," in which professors pose hypothetical legal scenarios and students are expected to analyze and debate the issues, is a common teaching technique. In China, the traditional lecture format isstill predominant, with professors delivering lectures and students taking notes. However, there has been a growing trend towards more interactive teaching methods in recent years, as law schools seek to emulate the American model.**Legal Research and Scholarship**American law schools place a strong emphasis on legal research and scholarship. Faculty members are expected to publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals, and students are often required to conduct independent research projects. In China, legal research and scholarship are also valued,but the focus is more on applied research that addressesreal-world legal issues rather than theoretical explorations.**Legal Culture and Ethics**The legal cultures and ethical standards of China and the United States also differ. In the United States, legal professionals are highly regarded for their expertise and objectivity. Lawyers are expected to uphold strict ethical standards and prioritize the interests of their clients above all else. In China, legal professionals are also expected to uphold high ethical standards, but there is a stronger emphasis on social harmony and stability, which can sometimes influence legal decisions.**Conclusion**In conclusion, while there are many similarities between Chinese and American legal education, there are also significant differences in curricular structure, teaching methodology, legal research and scholarship, and legal culture and ethics. Understanding these disparities is crucial for legal professionals who hope to operate effectively in both cultures. By embracing the strengths of both systems and adapting to the unique challenges of each, legal educators and practitioners can foster a more globalized and inclusive legal community.**中美法学教育的异同**中美法学教育在多个方面展现出共同点和差异性。
英美法系和大陆法系的区别英语作文
英美法系和大陆法系的区别英语作文The legal systems of the world are as diverse as the cultures they represent. Two of the most prominent and influential legal systems are the Anglo-American legal system, also known as the common law system, and the civil law system, typically associated with continental Europe. While both systems serve the fundamental purpose of maintaining social order and promoting justice, they differ significantly in their structure, sources of law, and judicial processes.**Structure of the Legal Systems**The Anglo-American legal system is characterized by a hierarchical structure with a supreme court at the apex, followed by lower courts. The common law system isprimarily based on precedent, meaning that legal decisions made by higher courts are binding on lower courts, creating a consistent and predictable legal framework. This system also relies heavily on the role of judges, who are expected to interpret and apply the law based on their understanding of precedent and the Constitution.On the other hand, the civil law system follows a more centralized approach, with a codified legal framework that outlines specific rules and regulations. This system is based on a comprehensive set of laws known as the civil code, which serves as the primary source of legal guidance for judges and lawyers. The civil law system also places greater emphasis on the role of legislators, who are responsible for drafting and修订法律，而 judges are typically expected to interpret and apply these laws rather than create new precedent.**Sources of Law**In the Anglo-American legal system, the primary sources of law are statutes passed by legislators and judicial decisions made by courts. Statutes provide a general framework for legal guidance, while judicial decisions, particularly those made by higher courts, shape thespecific application of the law through precedent. This system also recognizes the importance of customary law, which is based on long-standing practices and traditions, as well as the role of equity in ensuring fairness and justice.In contrast, the civil law system relies primarily on codified laws and regulations found in the civil code. These laws are drafted by legislators and serve as the primary source of legal guidance for judges and lawyers.The civil law system also recognizes the importance of international law and treaties, as well as the role of administrative agencies in regulating specific areas of law. **Judicial Processes**The judicial processes of the two legal systems differ significantly. In the Anglo-American legal system, trials are typically adversarial in nature, with lawyers representing the plaintiff and defendant presenting their arguments and evidence before a judge. The judge then makes a decision based on the law and the evidence presented,often relying on precedent to guide their decision-making. Appeals are made to higher courts, which have the authority to overturn or modify decisions made by lower courts.In the civil law system, judicial processes are more inquisitorial, with judges actively involved ininvestigating the facts and evidence of a case. Trials are typically less adversarial, and judges play a moredirective role in determining the outcome of a case. Appeals are also made to higher courts, but the role of precedent is less significant in the civil law system, as judges are bound by the codified laws and regulations found in the civil code.In conclusion, the Anglo-American legal system and the civil law system differ significantly in their structure, sources of law, and judicial processes. The common law system relies on precedent and judicial interpretation, while the civil law system follows a codified framework and places greater emphasis on the role of legislators. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which system to adopt depends on the specific needs and values of a given society.。
中美法系区别英文稿
The difference between sino-us legal system中美法律体系之间的差异First, the difference between sino-us legal system is actually a continental law system and common law is to say, the difference in China to judge you by laws of the penalties, while the United States used the same case, how now how revolted. Before the judge is the famous by the case to conviction.首先,中美之间法律体系的差异实际上就是大陆法系和英美法系的差异,在中国的区别来判断你,法律的惩罚,而美国使用了相同的情况下,现在如何如何起义反抗。
法官面前,是著名的由案例被定罪了。
Continental, refers to the Roman law, modelled on the basis of formulation, construct and developed some of the capitalist countries, the floorboard of the legal standard with German civil code and the French civil code for typical representative.Anglo-American law, refers to the medieval English law as the foundation, especially common-law based and traditional from and developed the floorboard of the legal standard.Continental law system and common law have their respective characteristics, which have its characteristics can be summed up in the continental law system and the differences of Anglo-American law system.1, legal origin is different. Continental law statute law should be the main sources, including legal code, habits, case and theory etc, among which code is the primary sources of continental law system. In case law Anglo-American law system as the main origin, following legal precedents binding principle.2, continental law into the culture of attention, procedure and logic, the mainland legal system country most in the form of written law was enacted. Importance of Anglo-American law system, follow precedent case law principle of binding.3, the classification of law is different. The continental law is divided into public and private law, based on the law, further divided into the constitution, the administrative law, criminal law and so on, into the common law and civil law of equity.4, in litigation, continental law system, GeYiZhi system and implement trial in trial system in, the judge predominates, ask the parties, investigation and evidence collection by the judge in GeYiZhi collegial panel of jurors, common and judge the case; But Anglo-American law practice, jury system against system and the system of judges in the fight in neutral position, just as a judge, party is in the leading position. Jurors in the jury system composed alone on the jury, ultimate judgment by the judge.5, in the powers of a judge on expression is different. Continental law judge based on statutory case could make beyond the statutes; Anglo-American law judge use case to try cases, can explain according to law case ?6, legal performance in different forms. Continental compiled code to give priority to, countries of Anglo-American law system mainly case law mainly.7, subject to Roman law the influence degree of different. Continental law system based on the development of Roman law, Anglo-American law under the influence of smaller, but in church law, commercial law, and equity is still influenced by it.Continental law system and common law is different from its main historical tradition,culture and development background of different and different. Both have their respective advantages and disadvantages, such as in the powers of a judge, Anglo-American law judge can "build law", according to the laws of law cases explanation, thus to trial, this needs the judge can fully understand law And high level need judges, can better safeguard the party's interests, but also may lead to a abuse of power; Continental law system with the judges of cases that require based written laws strictly in accordance with the provisions of laws, to the extent that limits the judge's subjective initiative of the case, may judge cause unnecessary influence.With the development of The Times, the mainland legal system and the difference of Anglo-American law system shall be subject to the is less obvious, both some aspects mutual profits and mutual confluence. For example the role during the continental law system, the judge also are also increasingly obvious case of more reference before; And in Anglo-American law written clause constantly increasing. Both of the mutual profits and mutual confluence is beneficial to both also ?。
大陆法系和英美法系的区别英语作文
大陆法系和英美法系的区别英语作文Title: Distinguishing Characteristics of Continental and Common Law SystemsThe Continental and Common Law systems, two major legal traditions, exhibit distinct characteristics that reflect their historical, cultural, and societal influences. Understanding these differences is crucial for legal practitioners, scholars, and the public alike, as it allows for a deeper comprehension of the legal frameworks within which disputes are resolved and rights are protected.At the core of the Continental Law system lies its deep roots in Roman Law. This legal tradition, which has its origins in Europe, particularly in France and Germany, heavily emphasizes the codification of laws. The Continental Law system is renowned for its systematic approach to legal codification, resulting in comprehensive and often quite detailed legal codes. These codes serve as the primary source of law, guiding judges and lawyers in their interpretation and application of the law. The role of judges in this system is generally more passive, as theyare bound by the provisions of the codes and are expectedto apply them objectively.Contrastingly, the Common Law system, which has its genesis in England and has spread to many other countries, including the United States, Australia, and Canada, placesa significant emphasis on judicial precedent. The CommonLaw system relies heavily on the decisions made by judgesin previous cases, known as precedents, as the primary source of law. These precedents are binding on lower courts, creating a body of law that evolves over time through the decisions of the judiciary. Judges in the Common Law system play a more active role, as they are often called upon to interpret and apply the law to novel situations, creating new precedents in the process.Another significant difference between the two systems lies in their approach to legal reasoning. In the Continental Law system, legal reasoning is typically deductive, starting from general principles and applying them to specific cases. This approach emphasizes thelogical deduction of legal outcomes from established principles. In contrast, the Common Law system adopts aninductive approach, where legal principles are derived from the analysis of past cases and applied to new situations. This inductive reasoning allows for the gradual evolution of the law in response to societal changes and new challenges.Moreover, the structure and classification of lawdiffer between the two systems. The Continental Law system typically organizes its laws into public and private law categories. Public law covers areas such as constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law, while private law concerns civil matters like contracts and property rights. The Common Law system, on the other hand, organizes its laws primarily around the distinction between common law and equity (or admiralty) law. Common law governs most civil disputes, while equity law deals with unique cases that require equitable solutions not easily captured by common law rules.In addition, the role of legal education and the legal profession differs between the two systems. In the Continental Law system, legal education often involves a rigorous study of legal codes and theories, preparingstudents for careers as judges, lawyers, and legal scholars. The legal profession is highly structured, with clear distinctions between different types of legal practitioners. In contrast, the Common Law system often encourages a more practical approach to legal education, focusing on case analysis and legal reasoning skills. The legal professionis also more diverse, with a range of specialties andcareer paths available to legal professionals.Finally, the two systems vary in their approach tolegal reform and development. In the Continental Law system, legal reform often involves the revision and updating of legal codes to reflect societal changes and new legal principles. This process is typically driven by legislators and legal scholars. In the Common Law system, legal reform often evolves through the decisions of judges, whointerpret and apply the law to new situations, gradually shaping the development of legal principles.In conclusion, the Continental and Common Law systems represent two distinct legal traditions with unique characteristics and approaches. While both systems aim to uphold justice and protect rights, they differsignificantly in their sources of law, legal reasoning, structure and classification, legal education, legal profession, and approach to legal reform. Understanding these differences is essential for anyone seeking to navigate the legal landscape in these respective jurisdictions.。
中美政治比较中英中英文对照
中美政治比较中英中英文对照Document number【980KGB-6898YT-769T8CB-246UT-18GG08】中美政治制度差异研究The political system of China and the United States differences research中国和美国政治制度现状China and the status quo of the American political system（一）中国的政治制度(a) of China's political system我国的政治制度概括起来主要有人民代表大会制度、中国人民政治协商制度、民族区域自治制度等。
In summary of political system in China mainly include the people's congress system, the Chinese people's political consultative system, regional national autonomy system, etc.中国宪法规定:“中华人民共和国实行的是人民代表大会制度，中华人民共和国的一切权力属于人民；人民行使国家权力的机关是全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会。
”全国人民代表大会是中国的最高国家权力机关，统一行使国家最高权力，人民代表大会制度是中国的根本政治制度，是实现人民民主专政的政治形式，是中国的政体。
全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会都由民主选举产生，对人民负责，受人民监督。
我国的选举制度是人民代表大会制度的重要组成部分，目前我国的选举制度的原则和主要内容一方面在宪法中得到确定，另一方面，全国人大组织法、地方各级人大组织法和选举法等有关法律法规也根据宪法所确立的社会主义选举制度的基本原则，对我国选举的具体内容作了详细的规定，它们同宪法一同构成了我国社会主义选举制度的法律基础。
中美司法体系比较(下)剖析
Suppression of evidence 证据的禁用
一、“证据的禁用”，即禁止非法获得的证据 在法庭使用，这是合法的行为。 二、是“隐匿证据”，即公诉人非法隐藏对被 告人有利的证据。如被发现，审判会被宣告 无效，需重新审理，并可能导致解除公诉人如果一个证人将来无法到庭作证，可以提前 把他的证言以录音、录像或逐字记录的形式 记录下来，供将来在法庭使用。 • 庭外录取证言需要双方的律师参加，通常在 一方的律师事务所进行。通常有法庭工作人 员到场，主持证人宣誓，并逐字记录全部谈 话，或录音录像。Deposition不同于中国法庭 使用的证人陈述（witness statement）。
• “发现不可避免”（inevitable discovery）的 原则，即警察只要能证明，即使使用正常侦 查手段，这项证据也会被发现，那么非法获 得的证据也可以使用。 • 1960 年前，还有银盘理论（Silver Platter Doctrine），意思是联邦法院可以接受州警 察在没有联邦参与或授权的搜查中非法获得 的证据。“银盘”比喻受到玷污的证据，用 干净的盘子托给联邦，就变成了干净的证据。
区分
• 优势证据标准主要用于民事案件，是较低的 证明标准，原告和被告谁的证据更有说服力， 谁就会胜诉。 • 排除合理怀疑标准主要用于刑事案件，是较 高的证明标准，意思是公诉人要证明到法官 （陪审团）几乎无可置疑地相信被告人犯了 罪，才能定罪，否则要放人。
美国的第三证明标准
• 美国的第三个证明标准，为clear and convincing evidence（证据清楚可信），是一 个中等水平的证明标准，用于某些种类的案 件，如国家剥夺父母监护权的案件。 • 中国刑事诉讼的证明标准是“犯罪事实清楚， 证据确实充分”clear facts, accurate and complete evidence
中美法规差异英语作文
中美法规差异英语作文Differences in Regulations between China and the United States。
In recent years, with the development of globalization, the trade relationship between China and the United States has become increasingly close. However, due to the differences in regulations between the two countries, there have been some conflicts in trade. In this essay, I will discuss the differences in regulations between China andthe United States, and their impact on trade.Firstly, the differences in regulations between China and the United States are mainly reflected in the areas of food safety, intellectual property protection, and environmental protection. In terms of food safety, Chinahas a more stringent regulatory system than the United States, which requires more testing and certification for food products. In terms of intellectual property protection, the United States has a more comprehensive legal system,which provides stronger protection for intellectualproperty rights. In terms of environmental protection,China has stricter regulations in some areas, such as air pollution control, while the United States has stricter regulations in other areas, such as water pollution control.Secondly, the differences in regulations between China and the United States have a significant impact on trade. For example, the differences in food safety regulationshave led to some trade disputes between the two countries.In 2013, China banned the import of U.S. poultry due to concerns about the use of antibiotics in the production process. This ban was lifted in 2019, but it had asignificant impact on the U.S. poultry industry. In termsof intellectual property protection, the differences in regulations have led to some disputes between Chinese and American companies. For example, in 2018, the United States imposed tariffs on Chinese goods in response to allegations of intellectual property theft by Chinese companies. This has led to a trade war between the two countries, which has had a negative impact on both economies.Finally, to address the differences in regulations between China and the United States, both countries need to work together to establish a more harmonious regulatory framework. This can be achieved through dialogue and cooperation between the two countries, as well as the development of international standards for food safety, intellectual property protection, and environmental protection.In conclusion, the differences in regulations between China and the United States are significant, and they have a significant impact on trade between the two countries. To address these differences, both countries need to work together to establish a more harmonious regulatory framework, which will benefit both economies in the long run.。
中美法规差异英语作文高中
As a high school student with a keen interest in international relations and comparative law, Ive always been fascinated by the differences between the legal systems of China and the United States. The study of these systems not only broadens my understanding of the world but also highlights the unique cultural and historical contexts that shape each countrys approach to law.Growing up in China, I was naturally more familiar with the legal framework that governs my country. The Chinese legal system is based on civil law, which means that laws are codified and judges are expected to apply the law as it is written without creating new law through their decisions. This system is deeply rooted in the countrys history and reflects a strong emphasis on stability and uniformity in the application of the law.In contrast, the United States operates under a common law system. Common law is characterized by the importance of precedent, where judges make decisions based on previous court rulings. This system allows for more flexibility and adaptability in the law, as it evolves with societal changes and new challenges. The U.S. legal system also places a strong emphasis on individual rights and liberties, as enshrined in the Constitution.One of the most striking differences between the two systems is the role of the jury. In the United States, juries play a crucial role in the judicial process, deciding the facts of a case and determining guilt or innocence. This is a reflection of the democratic ideals that underpin American society, where the people have a direct say in the administration of justice. InChina, however, there is no equivalent institution, and the decisionmaking process is solely in the hands of the judge or panel of judges.Another significant difference lies in the approach to criminal justice. In the U.S., the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental principle. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and defendants have extensive rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to a fair and speedy trial. In China, while the law also states that one is innocent until proven guilty, the process can sometimes be less transparent, and the state has more power in the investigation and prosecution of crimes.The differences in legal systems also reflect broader cultural and philosophical differences. The Chinese approach, with its emphasis on collective harmony and social stability, is deeply influenced by Confucian thought. The American system, with its focus on individual rights and freedoms, is heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideals.A practical example of these differences can be seen in the way intellectual property is protected. In the U.S., the legal framework is robust and actively enforced, with a strong culture of respecting and protecting creative works and inventions. In China, while the laws are catching up, the enforcement and societal attitudes towards intellectual property are still evolving.Moreover, the differences in legal education are also telling. In the U.S., law students are trained to think critically and argue cases from multiple perspectives, which is reflective of the adversarial nature of the courtroom.In China, the focus is more on understanding and applying the law as it is written, which aligns with the civil law tradition.The impact of these legal differences is farreaching. For businesses operating in both countries, understanding the legal landscape is crucial for success. For individuals, it shapes their rights and freedoms. And for me, as a student, it provides a rich area of study that connects history, culture, and society.In conclusion, the differences between the Chinese and American legal systems offer a fascinating study in contrasts. They highlight the importance of context in shaping legal systems and underscore the value of understanding different approaches to justice. As I continue my education and consider my future, I am drawn to the complexity and richness of this field, and I look forward to further exploring the intersections of law, culture, and society.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
中美司法制度比较英语
篇一：从中美司法独立现状的比较看中美司法制度的差异
从中美司法独立现状的比较看中美司法制度的差异
作者：李玥
来源：《法制博览》20XX年第02期
【摘要】司法独立作为一项现代法治原则，在现代各国宪政中得到了普遍尊重和确认。
本文从中美两国司法机关的机构设置，司法机关的外部独立和内部独立三方面着手比较，以透析中美司法制度的差异，并试图从中得到推进我国司法改革和完善司法独立的新的思考。
【关键词】司法独立；中美差异；现状；思考
一、中美司法机关的机构设置比较
（一）中国司法机关的机构设置
对应我国的“乡（镇）、县（区）、市、省（自治区、直辖市）、国家”五级行政管理结构，我国的审判系统设置为四级审判机关，即在县（区）及以上同级行政区域内分别设立基层、中级、高级和最高人民法院，同时乡（镇）一级有的还由基层法院设派出人民法庭。
同级审判机关产生于同级权力机关（人民代表大会及其常委会），对同级权力机关负责并接受其领导和监督。
（二）美国司法机关的机构设置
美国的法院体系是由联邦与州两大系统构成的，两者适用各自的宪法
和法律，管辖不同的案件和地域，理论上说并无从属关系，但实际上，联邦法院的地位仍更高些。
根据美国“县（市）、州和国家”三级行政管理结构，在这两大系统中都分别设置了三级司法体制。
联邦法院系统中设置有三个等级的法院，即联邦最高法院、联邦巡回法院和联邦地区法院，并且联邦最高法院享有特殊的司法审查权；而州法院系统一般也分为三个层次，即州最高法院、州上诉法院和初审法院。
在美国，法官的任免权统一由联邦或州的最高行政首长和立法机关行使，联邦法院法官的产生须由国家最高行政首长（总统）提名，并需要经过国会的批准；而各州的各级法院法官也全部由州长提名，并由州议会批准才产生，当然也不排除个别州的初审法院法官是从律师中选举产生的。
二、中美司法机关的外部独立比较
（一）中国司法机关的外部独立
1.司法机关与权力机关的关系
我国政权的组织原则是民主集中制，其理论基础包含着两个层面：一是民选权力机关（人民代表大会及其常委会）的地位绝对高于其他国家机关，二是国家权力的集中统一性。
所以，在我国，权力机关的地位高于包括司法机关在内的其他国家机关，它们都由权力机关产生，需要对权力机关负责，并接受权力机关的领导和监督，换句话说，权力机关是可以通过决议撤销或改组包括司法机关在内的其他国家机关的。
而国家权力的集中统一性，又说明了任何种类的政治权力都来源于同一处，即司法机关所掌握的司法权究其本源也来源于权力机关
的授予。
我国各级人大对各级法院所进行的监督主要包括：同级人大任命和罢免同级法院院长、庭长和审判员，审议法院的年度工作报告，对法院制定的司法解释或其他规范性的文件进行审查，对法院的个案审理进行事前、事中和事后的监督和审查等。
人大进行监督的目的，应当是保证司法权的独立、促进司法的公正，并且监督的前提是不能干涉法院的公正审判，不能在监督过程中偏向任何一方当事人或参杂任何私人目的。
然而在实际的操作过程中，人大的监督却时常出现“越位”现象——往往法院刚受理一个案件，人大的具体处理意见和要求汇报的指示就传来了，这就使同级法院与同级人大无形中形成了一个事实上的领导和服从关系。
2.司法机关与行政机关的关系
我国《宪法》规定：“人民法院依照法律独立行使审判权，不受行政机关、社会团体和个人的干涉。
”因此，从严格意义上说，我国法院行使审判权时是独立于行政机关的。
并且，为了在必要时对行政机关的活动进行监督审查，我国还颁布了《行政诉讼法》，而所谓“行政诉讼”，就是人民法院根据相对人申请，依法（法律、行政法规和地方性法规）按司法程序处理行政争议的活动①，通常也被称为“民告官”。
《行政诉讼法》第一章总则里就规定了“为保证人民法院正确、及时审理行政案件，保护公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益，维护和监督行政机关依法行使行政职权，根据宪法制定本法。
”“公民、法人或者其他组织认为行政机关和行政机关工作人员的具体行政行为侵犯其合法权益，有权依照本法向人民法院提起诉讼。
”“人民法院依法对行
政案件独立行使审判权，不受行政机关、社会团体和个人的干涉。
”这说明了我国的司法机关是有权对行政机关具体行政行为的合法性进行司法审查的，并且不受行政机关的干涉。
然而，我国的司法机关只享有对行政机关的行政行为进行司法审查的权力，而无权对立法机关的行为，包括对违反宪法的法律法规进行司法审查。
虽然宪法明确规定了人民法院独立行使审判权不受行政机关的干预，但在实际操作中，法院却无法摆脱行政机关的影响。
一方面，各级法院的工资及办公经费都是由同级政府划拨的，法院收入的多寡取决于同级政府的给予，这就使得政府变成了司法机关的“衣食父母”。
另一方面，法院中层以下干部的进出和升降都必须经由政府人事部门的审批，有时政府的一纸文件甚至某个领导人的一句话便可能会影响到司法人员的仕途。
我国各级法院在财政与人事上的不独立，使得我国的司法活动地方化和行政化色彩日益加重。
很多时候，政府部门对司法活动进行干预主要为了保护地方经济利益和维持地方社会稳定，严重的地方保护主义现象就造成了本来是国家设置在地方的法院变成了从属于和听命于地方的法院。
同时，我国司法活动的“功利化趋向”也日益明显——由于对政府部门的严重依赖，许多法院在面对以本地区行政机关为被告的行政诉讼案件时往往是不愿或不敢受理的，就怕得罪了行政机关，即使法院受理了案件，在
篇二：从中美司法独立现状的比较看中美司法制度的差异
从中美司法独立现状的比较看中美司法制度的差异
【摘要】司法独立作为一项现代法治原则，在现代各国宪政中得到了。