美国证券执法中的行政法官制度被引量：11

Administrative Law Judges in the US SEC Securities Enforcement

导出

摘要现代资本市场对证券执法提出了统一性、专业性、独立性、高效性、权威性的要求。美国依托自身实践,发展完善了SEC行政法官制度,在发挥其专业、高效等突出优点的同时,秉承制衡、救济的宪政司法基本原则,从人事任免、职权范围、程序安排、司法审查等方面加以规范约束,确保其独立性和公正性。 Modern capital market demands a unified and independent securities enforcement framework with high degrees of efficiency and authority. The US has developed the sound institution of SEC administrative law judges and stricken a balance amongst the aforesaid pursuits. While effective and responsive, the independence and justice have not been compromised substantially, thanks to various check - and - balances from appointment, scope of authorities, to procedures and judicial review.

作者郭雳

机构地区北京大学美国康奈尔大学

出处《行政法学研究》 CSSCI 2008年第4期116-122,共7页 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW

基金中国证监会<行政体制改革框架下的金融执法体制创新> 教育部<金融市场全球化下的中国金融监管体系研究>(07JZD0010)课题成果之一

关键词行政法官证券执法司法审查美国证监会 Administrative Law Judge Securities Enforcement Judicial Review SEC

分类号 D971.2 [政治法律—法学] DD912.28 [政治法律]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献32

1http://www. sec. gov/about/whatwedo, shtml # org, 最后访问时间:2008年9月9日.
2Harvey L. Pitt, Michael H. Rauch & Audrey Strauss, A Constructive Appraisal of the SEC' s Enforcement Program, Practising Law Institute Corporate Law and Practice Course Handbook Series PLI Order No. B4- 7037 August 23- 24, 1993.
3James R.Farrand, Ancillary Remedies in SEC Civil Enforcement Suits, 89 Harvard law Review 1779 (1976).
4William R.McLucas, John C.Nagel & Julie J.Song, An Overview of SEC Enforcement, Remedial and Settlement Power before and after the Sarbanes - Oxley Act, Corporate Law and Practice Course Handbook Series, PLI Order Number B0 - 01PG, November, 2003.
5thab.L.No.59- 337, 34 Stat.584, 594, 595 (1906).
6Lubbers, Jeffrey S., The Federal Administrative Judiciary: Establishing an Appropriate System of Performance Evaluations for ALJs, 7 Admin.L.J.Am.U.625- 626 (1994).
7AdministrativeProcedureAct, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551- 59, 701-06, 1305, 3105, 3344, 5372, 7521 (1988).
8H.R.REP.NO.1403, 95th Cong., 2d Sess.87 (1978).
9Independence and the Federal ALJ (Panel Discussion), 18 J. NAAIJ 47 (1998).
105 U.S.G.554(a).

二级参考文献44

1Goss . Lopez, 419 U.S. 565(1975).
2章剑生.《行政程序法比较研究》[Z].,..
3Katzson Bros., Inc. v. U.S. EPA,839 F. 2d 1396 ( 10th Cir. 1988).
4Gilbert v. NTSB, 80 F. 3d 364 (9th Cir. 1996).
5In re Mother Tucker' s Food Experience (Canada) Inc., 925 F. 2d1402 ( Fed. Cir. 1991).
6Morgan v. United States, 304U.S. 1, 18-19 (1938).
7Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Martin, 954 F.2d 353 (6th Cir. 1992).
8In re C,hocallo, 1 M.S.P.R. 605632(1980), aff'd, 2 M.S.P.B. 20 aff'd w/o opinion, 716 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1983),cert. den. 464 U.S. 983 (1983).
95 U.S.C.A. § 556(d).
10562 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1977).