Studying On The Doctrine Of State Indemnity Liability

On May 12,1994 , State Indemnity Law of the People's Republic of China issued and came into effect on January 1,1995. The state indemnity system of our country had been established. It is the important achievement of democracy and legal system building. It is a sign that the system to protect citizen's right becomes better and better. About ten years past, but the result implemented is unsatisfactory. The environment of the national legal system isn't still perfect, and the consciousness by law of citizen, legal person and the respondent organizations in indemnity isn't high, the funds of indemnity isn't ensured. Besides, the defect of State Indemnity Law is undoubtedly an important cause.The practice of State Indemnity Law prove that the doctrine of state indemnity liability is quite simple and the scope of indemnity is quite narrow. So many citizens and legal persons can't get the state indemnity. For ten years, State Indemnity Law had been issued. It's an urgent task to revise the State Indemnity Law and to perfect the doctrine of liability. It has great theory meaning and realistic meaning.The thesis finds out some defect of State Indemnity Law through comparative analysis between our country and other country in the world. The legislation is disharmonious, state shouldn't indemnify for government employee's abusing the right of law. State shouldn't indemnify the loss caused by public facilities or government employee's legal action. So the system of the doctrine of state indemnity liability shouldn't be simple. The government institutions should bear state indemnity liability for illegal action. But it's not enough, state should bear state indemnityliability for negligence. In judicial judgment, state should bear state indemnity liability for some results. The loss caused by public facilities, state should bear state indemnity liability for negligence or risk. In some cases, legal action cause loss, state should bear state indemnity liability although have no negligence. All of these, just want to give some advices to the revise of the State Indemnity Law, to offer service for judicial practice.