“监督过失归责”问题旨在研究：当发生了重大法益侵害时，如何追究对法益负有保护职责的监督者、管理者的刑事过失责任，以及责任追究的法律根据。本文的“监督过失”是指广义的监督过失，包括狭义的监督过失和管理过失；“归责”包括客观归责、主观归责与责任主体三个方面。本文首先通过对比德国、日本的监督（过失）责任理论与实践的现状建立了我国研究监督过失归责问题的基本框架：首先，要在过失犯的问题之下研究监督过失，对监督过失的归责必须符合过失犯的一般责任原理；其次，在监督过失的行为表现为不作为时，根据不真正不作为犯的责任原理，确定监督过失的客观可归责性与责任主体的范围。在监督过失的客观归责方面，运用客观归责理论分析了监督过失中危险制造与危险实现的特殊表现。认为可以根据安全行政法规、“交往规范”以及组织内部的安全规范来判断某种监督行为是否制造了不被允许的危险。提出并非绝对不能对故意犯背后的管理过失行为进行归责，判断能否进行归责应该综合考察管理者行为的危险程度、介入的故意行为的危险程度等。而且，认为监督过失的实行行为的样态多表现为不作为。在监督过失的主观归责方面，主要讨论了监督过失中预见可能性的对象与程度问题。认为监督者、管理者需要认识到“具体的结果以及因果关系的基本部分”。对于因果关系基本部分的认识需要根据“中间项”理论进行判断。在监督过失责任主体方面，主要提出应该区分监督过失与以玩忽职守罪为代表的公务过失，认为并非主体身份是国家机关工作人员时就一定按照玩忽职守等犯罪进行处罚，还应考察行为人是否实质地支配了公民人身法益受到侵害的原因以及因果流程。

The treatise researches on the problem that when severe violation occurs how to publish the supervisors who has the obligation of supervision, and what is the basis of imputation. Supervisory negligence means that in broad sense which concludes the limited supervisory negligence and managing negligence. And imputation concludes objective imputation, subjective imputation and imputable subjects.The treatise firstly comprises the theory of supervisory negligence in Germany and Japan, and then sets up the frame of the issue supervisory negligence in China. First, we should research on supervisory negligence on the basis of negligent crime. Second, when the action of supervisory negligence is act of omission, guarantor principle can help to define the scope of imputable subjects.The treatise analyzes the special form of making risk and the realization of risk in supervisory negligence according to the objective imputation principle. We can judge whether some action makes impermissible risk according to administrative safety norms, contact safety norms and safety norms in an organization. And we can not directly deny the responsibility of managers behind deliberate actions. In fact, we must research on the degrees of risks made by managers and by deliberate actors, etc. In addition, most actions in supervisory negligence is act of omission.In the part of subjective imputation of supervisory negligence, the treatise mainly discusses the object and degree of possibility of perception. Supervisors and managers must foresee concrete result and the basic part of consequence. As far as the foresight of basic part of consequence, we can judge it by the principle of intermediate item.Finally, the treatise discusses the difference between negligence in official duty and in supervision. The treatise does not consider that someone commits a grave breach of duty only on ground that he is a staff member in state organs. We must also discuss whether the staff member materially dominate the reason and sequence of personal injures.