|
| 论内部监督主导功能视域下的学术复核制度 |
| On the Academic Re-evaluation System from the Perspective of Internal Supervision’s Dominant Function |
| 投稿时间：2025-10-20 |
| DOI：10.19834/j.cnki.yjsjy2011.2026.03.12 |
| 中文关键词: 学术复核制度;学位法;学术权力;内部监督;监督责任 |
| 英文关键词: academic re-evaluation system;Academic Degree Law;academic power;internal supervision;supervisory responsibility |
| 基金项目:国家社会科学基金青年项目“行政法视野下公共惩罚结构失衡之调适研究”(21CFX064);上海市教育法学人才培养计划(2024JYFXR088) |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 马迅 | 华东政法大学 纪检监察学院, 上海 200042 | | 严驰 | 华东政法大学 纪检监察学院, 上海 200042 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 121 |
| 全文下载次数: 580 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 学术复核作为《学位法》的重要制度创新,功能定位的模糊是限制其发挥制度效能的关键。学界既有的“并重论”与“一体论”范式无法平息学术复核制度功能定位模糊之争论,为实现正本清源,应当以学术权力运行为主线,以内部监督为主导统摄纠纷解决、学术自由、权利救济各项功能。通过深入分析学术复核制度的规范构造发现,学术复核权的权力属性、获得公正学术评价权的权利特点和学术复核程序的内在机理,共同展现了制度内部的权力监督主线。学术复核制度生发背景隐含的监督导向、立法技术彰显的监督优位和制度价值实现的监督依托,在三个维度诠释了内部监督主导功能的理论正当性。立足这一主导功能,学术复核制度的体系化完善应当充分尊重学术权力的运行逻辑,通过规范权力要件以贯通监督脉络,优化运行机制以提升监督效益,划分惩戒梯度以落实监督责任。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| The academic re-evaluation introducedin the Academic Degree Law is a significant institutional innovation. However, the ambiguity in its functional orientation remains the key obstacleto realizing its full institutional efficacy.The current scholarly paradigms of "dual-priority" and "unified-system" in academia remain unable to resolve the controversy over the ambiguous functional positioning of the academic re-evaluationsystem.To restore the system to its original intent, academic power operation should serve as the guiding line, with internal supervision as the leading force to integrate and govern the functions of dispute resolution, academic freedom, and rights remedy.By delving into the normative construction of the academic re-evaluation system, this study findsthat the power attributes of the academic re-evaluation authority, the characteristics of the right to obtain fair academic evaluation, and the internal mechanism of the academic re-evaluation procedure collectively constitute themainline of the power supervision within the system. In addition, the theoretical legitimacy of the internal supervision’s leading function is interpreted across three analytical dimensions: the supervisory orientation implied in the genesis backgroundof the academic re-evaluation system, the supervisory priority highlighted by legislative techniques, and the supervisory reliance for realizing institutional values.Based on this leading function, this paper suggests that the systematic improvement of the academic re-evaluation system should fully respect the operational logic of academic power, connect the supervisory framework by standardizing key power elements, enhance supervisory efficiency by optimizing operational mechanisms, and implement supervisory responsibilities by dividing and defining punishment gradients. |
|
查看HTML全文
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
