对正义的追求是人类前行的主要动力之一,司法则是正义实现的重要手段，而司法体系就是司法正义的制度保障,公平正义作为法院的灵魂和生命，也是法院存在的价值和决定因素。近些年，最高人民法院在促进司法公正，保障正义实现方面做了大量卓有成效的改革。经过二十年的努力，在审判方式改革、收回死刑复核权、司法职业化、司法责任制等方面取得了实质性的进展，不断将中国的司法现代化向前推进。但是，司法改革取得的成效离民众的正义需求在很多方面还有一定的距离，还有许多需要较大较深改进的地方。对司法地方化问题带来的司法困境在司法体制改革应对方面实质进展不大是其中一个突出问题。司法体系设置的地方化，不可避免的带来“司法的地方化”。司法地方化大都与司法的地方保护主义划上等号或对应起来，一般都将其主要原因归于法院设置的行政区域化。十八届四中全会明确了“打破地方保护主义对司法审判权的干扰，确保人民法院依法独立行使审判权”的改革要求，及“探索设立跨行政区域审判机构”等部署，这给人民法院深化体制性改革，直接针对司法体系设置进行变革，确保法制统一，独立公正司法，高效行使审判权提供了非常重要的政策指引和理论依据。

在中央关于跨行政区划法院改革动向披露以来，相关研究和讨论声音一直比较热烈，从打破司法地方化、确保独立司法与司法公正角度出发，众多的研究者就跨行政区划法院的改革路径给出了许多颇有意趣的设想，但是这些设想大多缺乏对现实困难的正视与理性分析而显得现实性不足，对改革的理论支撑不够。2019年2月27日最高人民法院发布《五五改革纲要》，继续提出建立与司法区划适当分离的司法管辖制度，虽然提法与四五改革纲要略有不同，但其改革精神和价值取向与四五改革纲要一脉相承，为下一步坚持深入推进改革树立了坚强信心，提供了重要依据。有鉴于此，本文拟通过对司法权的属性、司法体系与公正、效率、成本、权威等其价值追求目标的关联的分析，全面分析在中国组建跨行政区划法院在深化司法体制改革战略中的重要意义，同时结合目前的实际，剖析阻碍改革的现实难题，尝试寻求符合我国国情的跨行政区划法院设计路径，以期对我国跨行政区划法院改革有所裨益。本文共分六章来阐释，具体包括：

第一章是“导论”。本章主要阐述中国司法体系二元建构的问题缘起，研究目的、理论研究状况、研究意义和研究方法。自中国共产党十八届三中全会提出探索建立与行政区划适当分离的司法管辖（法院设置）制度后，对跨行政区划法院的相关研究大量涌现，但是目前的研究成果不够系统，深度和广度也有所欠缺，没有勾勒出清晰的顶层设计和具体的制度体系。有鉴于此，本文综合采用实证分析法、历史分析法、价值分析法、比较分析法等多种研究方法，对跨行政区域法院进行了全面、系统的研究，弥补目前学界对此问题研究系统性不足的缺陷，对于当前跨行政区域法院改革研究有着较为重要的理论意义。

第二章是“中国一元司法体系的现状与存在的弊端”。本章对中国司法体系的历史与传承、现状与特色进行考察，并对当前一元司法体系存在的弊端进行深入挖掘。中国当前司法体系的形成包括中国传统司法延续、清末再造性的司法变革的成果、红色根据地政权初创的司法体系以及苏联司法体系的借鉴等影响牵制。我国目前重建并逐步完善形成了以普通法院为主要路径，以专门法院为补充，以地域为主要设置原则，以跨区划为补充的四级两审司法体系。当前司法体系的主要问题是，由于司法管辖区与行政区划基本重合一致，导致司法官员任免和经费保护的高度地方化，地方行政权主动介入干预司法，不可避免地带来“司法的地方化”，对司法权独立公正统一行使造成危害。

第三章是“中国设置二元司法体系的价值优势分析”。本章主要基于价值分析，研究我国设置二元司法体系的优势所在。针对中国目前一元司法体系下，司法地方化侵蚀司法公正、独立司法等弊端，二元司法体系在最高司法审判权的统一范畴内，形成地方法院与国家法院两个并行的体系，更加有利于革除司法地方化弊端、保障法律适用统一、优化配置司法资源、强化权力监督制约、汲取传统司法文化，对促进司法公正、增强司法权威、提升司法效率、实现制度正义、传承司法文明具有重要意义，进一步改革和优化了一元司法体系，具有明显的价值优势。

第四章是“外国司法体系的经验考察”。本章通过对域外部分国家司法体系设置情况的梳理总结，为我国跨行政区域法院改革提供借鉴和启示。本章分别对英国、美国、法国、德国、日本、俄罗斯六个国家司法体系设置情况进行考察，发现无论是联邦制还是单一制国家，无论是英美法系还是大陆法系国家，其有一个共同特点，就是将司法权和行政权作为两种截然不同的权力对待，在二者相互制约的同时重点防范行政权对司法权的侵蚀，主要方法就是司法区域与行政区域相分离，通过独立于行政区域的司法管辖区设置，克服地方行政权对司法权的干预。其司法体系也大都不是一元的，或是联邦和地方的二元体制，或是普通法院与专门法院的二元乃至多元的司法体系，在权力制衡、法制统一，充分发挥中央和地方各自优势和积极性方面起到相当作用，这些都值得我们参考和借鉴。

第五章是“中国二元司法体系设立的路径选择”。本章在总结我国跨行政区域法院改革理论模式和实践探索经验和反思相关问题的基础上，对我国构建二元司法体系的现实路径进行了建构。在司法权属国家事权及可与地方授权分享的概念下，可以推动形成两个二元分设的跨区域法院和地方法院系统。对特殊案件、影响到全国法制统一的案件、省际间的案件等，由国家法院系统管辖，普通案件则由地方法院系统行使。考虑制衡与效率以及改革成本，不能对现有体制做太大改动，需充分利用现有司法体系去改建。铁路法院这个现成资源，这个专门法院的设置体系、区域分布、管辖范围都初步具备跨区域法院的雏形，以其为基础的改造极具现实可行性。

第六章是“中国二元司法体系设立的具体构想”。本章对我国设置二元司法体系的一系列具体制度进行建构。跨行政区域法院改革能否成功的关键在于制度设计的可行性与合理性。本章对跨行政区域法院改革的具体框架体系进行了构建，包括跨行政区域法院的法律依据、法律地位、司法管辖区的确定、与人大及地方的关系、内部去行政化等内容，对困扰当前跨行政区域法院改革的诸多问题给出解决方案，为建立二元司法体系打下坚实基础。

The relentless pursuit of justice is one of the main driving forces of human progress. Mankind has been pursuing justice and promoting justice. Justice is an important choice to achieve justice, and the judicial system is a powerful guarantee for justice. Therefore, fairness and justice are the soul and life of the court, and it is the value and decisive factor of the court. In recent years, the Supreme People’s Court has promoted many effective reforms in promoting judicial justice and achieving justice. After two decades of hard work, China has made substantial progress in reforming the trial method, withdrawing the right of death penalty review, and advancing judicial professionalism and accountability, which promoted the process of China's judicial modernization. However, the effectiveness of the existing judicial reform has not yet met the justice needs of the society. For example, the judicial dilemma caused by judicial localization has not made substantial progress for the time being. The biggest problem in the current judicial system is "localization of justice". Normally, "localization of justice" is regarded as local protectionism, the reason is the administrative regionalization of the judicial system. The Fourth Plenary Session of the Eighteenth Central Committee clearly stated that it is necessary to "break the interference of local protectionism with judicial adjudication power and ensure that the people's courts can exercise their judicial power in accordance with the law and independently." This reform strategy has become an important policy guide and theoretical basis for further advancing the institutional reform of courts and system setting reforms; and ensuring the unity of the rule of law, independent and fair justice; and the efficient exercise of judicial power.

Since the introduction of the interregional court reform strategy, relevant research and discussions have been very enthusiastic. From the perspective of breaking the localization and ensuring independence and fair, many researchers have put forward many reform paths with reference significance. However, the existing reform proposals do not face the difficulties in reality, the rational analysis is too empty, and the theoretical support for judicial reform is insufficient. On February 27, 2019, the Supreme People's Court issued the “Fifth Five Reform Outline”, which further proposed the establishment of a jurisdiction system that is properly separated from the regional division. This statement is slightly different from the “Fourth-five Reform Outline” but the reform spirit and value orientation is consistent, which provides confidence and theoretical basis for further reform. In view of this, this article will analyze the relationship between the attributes of judicial power and judicial value goals (justice, efficiency, cost, authority), and summarize the importance of courts across administrative divisions in the judicial system reform strategy. At the same time, combined with the current realities and the difficulties that hinder the reform, the design path of the cross-administrative division courts in line with the national conditions is sought. This article is divided into six chapters, including:

The first chapter is "Introduction". This chapter mainly explains the origin of China's judicial dual construction system, as well as the research purpose, theoretical research status, research significance and research methods. The Third Plenary Session of the Eighteenth Central Committee of the Party put forward: actively explore and establish a judicial system that is properly separated from administrative divisions. Since then, academic research on cross-administrative division courts has appeared in large numbers. However, the current academic research results are not yet a mature system. At the same time, the depth and breadth of the research are insufficient. There is no clear top-level design and specific supporting system specifications. In view of this, this article will use a variety of research methods such as empirical analysis, historical analysis, value analysis, comparative analysis, etc., with cross-administrative courts as the research theme to conduct a comprehensive and systematic study. This research can make up for the shortcomings of the current academic research system is not strong, and has important theoretical significance for China's judicial reform research.

The second chapter is "The Present Situation and Disadvantages of China's Unitary Judicial System". This chapter examines the historical inheritance and current status of the Chinese judicial system, and delves into the shortcomings of the unitary judicial system. China's current judicial system has been influenced and constrained by the inheritance of traditional Chinese justice, the results of reinventing judicial reforms in the late Qing Dynasty, the judicial system at the beginning of the red base regime, and the Soviet judicial system. At present, China has rebuilt and perfected the principles of judicial and judicial setting, and gradually formed a "four levels and two trials" model of the judicial system: with ordinary courts as the main path, with special courts as the secondary supplement; with geographical as the main setting, with interregional court is a secondary supplement. The main problem of the current judicial system is that the consistency of the jurisdiction and administrative divisions leads to the highly localized appointment and removal of judicial officials and the protection of departmental funds. Local administrative power's initiative to intervene and intervene in justice inevitably brings about "localization of justice", which harms the independent and impartial exercise of judicial power.

The third chapter is "Analysis of the Value Advantages of China's Dual Judicial System". This chapter is mainly based on value analysis to study the advantages of China's dual judicial system.In view of the drawbacks of China's current one-dimensional judicial system, such as the erosion of judicial impartiality and judicial independence by the localization of the judiciary, the dual judicial system forms two parallel systems of local courts and national courts within the unified scope of the highest judicial jurisdiction. More conducive to expelling the drawbacks of the judicial localization, the applicable law, optimizing the allocation of the unified judicial resources, strengthening power supervision and restraint, the traditional legal culture, to promote judicial justice, enhance the judicial authority, improve judicial efficiency, justice and judicial civilization is of great significance to implement system, further reform and optimization of a yuan of judicial system, the value of has obvious advantages.

The fourth chapter is "Experience and Reference of Foreign Judicial System". This chapter provides a reference and inspiration for the reform of the interregional courts in China by summarizing the construction of foreign judicial systems. This chapter examines the construction of the judicial systems in six countries: the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia. It can be found that whether it is a federal system or a unitary system, whether it is an Anglo-American legal system or a civil law country, its judicial setting has a common feature: the judicial power and the administrative power are treated as two different powers. At the same time, it prevents the erosion of administrative power to judicial power. The main method to realize this idea is to separate the judicial region from the administrative region. The setting of jurisdictions is completely independent of the setting of administrative regions, and this method is used to overcome the interference of local administrative power with judicial power. At the same time, the judicial systems of foreign countries are mostly the federal and local dual systems, or the dual systems of ordinary courts and special courts, and even multiple judicial systems. The dual system gives full play to the respective advantages and enthusiasm of the central and local governments in terms of power checks and balances and the unification of legal systems. These experiences are worthy of reference for China.

The fifth chapter is "The Realistic Path for China's Dual Judicial System". On the basis of summarizing the practical experience and practical problems of the trial reform of interregional courts in China, this chapter puts forward the practical path for China to build a dual judicial system. Under the concept of judicial ownership of state affairs and sharing with local authorities, two separate court systems are constructed: a cross-regional court system and a local court system. Special cases, cases that affect the unification of the national legal system, and interregional cases are all under the jurisdiction of the national court system. Common cases are under the jurisdiction of the local court system. Considering the problems of power balances, the efficiency of implementation, and the cost of reform, there is no need to make too many changes to the judicial system, and we must make full use of the existing judicial structure to build a new dual judicial system. The railway court is a ready resource for reform. As a special court nationwide, the railway court has initially established the prototype of a cross-regional court in its setting system, regional distribution, and jurisdiction. Based on the railway court, it is practical and feasible to promote the reform of the dual court system.

The title of Chapter six is "Specific Conception of the Establishment of Chinese Dual Judicial Justice". This chapter intends to construct the specific content of China's dual judicial system. The key to interregional court reform is the feasibility and rationality of its system design. Chapter six try to build a specific framework for interregional court reform, including: legal basis, legal status, determination of jurisdiction, relationship with people's congresses and localities, internal de-administration, etc. At the same time, this chapter will provide solutions to many issues that have plagued the reform of the current courts, laying a solid foundation for the establishment of a dual judicial system.