粤港澳大湾区承载着我国实践“一国两制”方针及推动港澳与内地深度合作的战略使命，然而，由于不同体制和多元文化的交融，大湾区在一体化进程中面临着跨境犯罪增多和治理效能不足的严峻挑战，其中，区际刑事司法协助问题成为亟待解决的关键难题。鉴于此，本文旨在通过构建“框架安排+专项协议+附件”的新模式，强化跨境犯罪的打击力度，确保大湾区建设的稳步推进，并为日后示范法的施行奠定良好的实践基础。

第一章主要对区际刑事司法协助的基本概念、现实困境进行深入剖析。首先，阐释“区际刑事司法协助”的核心要义与特征。其次，系统梳理大湾区刑事司法协助中存在的突出问题，包括各法域间刑事司法协助的法律与实践现状、所面临的困境，以及各法域内部刑事司法协助工作衔接中的难点。

第二章详细探讨了如何从美国、澳大利亚、德国等国家在区际刑事司法协助方面的成功实践中汲取经验。具体而言，通过分析这些国家和地区在协助机制、法律程序、信息共享等方面的做法，为改进和完善大湾区的司法协助模式提供有益启示。

第三章聚焦区际刑事司法协助的代表性模式，就理论界关注的具有可行性的模式深入分析其在粤港澳大湾区的适用性，如立法模式、协议模式、国际公约模式以及“框架安排+附件”模式等。这些观点为大湾区刑事司法协助模式的构建提供了有力的理论支撑和实践参考，为粤港澳大湾区刑事司法协助模式的构建提供了支持。

第四章则详细构想粤港澳大湾区区际刑事司法协助的新模式。通过借鉴“区域海洋项目”所采用的“框架公约+议定书+附件”模式，本文提出“框架安排+专项协议+附件”的创新模式。这一模式具有清晰的准则界限、高度的灵活性与适应性，以及渐进实用、持续性强等优点，能够有效应对实践中的复杂问题。此外，本章还深入探讨了该模式在实践中的实施路径，包括粤港澳三地代表司法机构共同签署《粤港澳大湾区区际刑事司法协助框架安排》，并在上述安排中明确粤港澳大湾区的区际刑事司法协助的基本原则、合作范围、程序机制等关键内容。同时，通过制定专项协议和附件，进一步细化合作内容，确保司法协助的针对性和有效性。值得说明的是，本文不反对示范法模式，但认为其应建立在良好实践基础之上，当“框架安排+专项协议+附件”模式取得一定成果后，可推动粤港澳大湾区刑事司法协助法立法。

The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) shoulders the strategic mission of implementing the policy of “One Country, Two Systems” and promoting in-depth cooperation between Hong Kong, Macao, and the Mainland. However, due to the integration of different systems and diverse cultures, the GBA faces severe challenges in the process of integration, including the increasing number of cross-border crimes and insufficient governance effectiveness. Among them, the issue of inter-regional criminal judicial assistance has become a crucial problem that needs to be solved urgently. Therefore, this article aims to strengthen the crackdown on cross-border crimes, ensure the steady progress of the GBA construction, and lay a solid practical foundation for the future implementation of the model law by constructing a new model of “Framework Arrangement + Special Agreement + Annex. ”

Chapter One conducts an in-depth analysis of the basic concepts and practical difficulties of inter-regional criminal judicial assistance. Firstly, the core essence and characteristics of “inter-regional criminal judicial assistance” are explained. Secondly, we systematically sort out the outstanding issues existing in criminal judicial assistance in GBA, including the legal and practical status of criminal judicial assistance between various jurisdictions, the difficulties faced, and the difficulties in the connection of criminal judicial assistance work within each jurisdiction.

Chapter Two explores in detail how to draw experience from the successful practices of interregional criminal judicial assistance in the United States, Australia, Germany and other countries. Specifically, by analyzing the practices of these countries and regions in assistance mechanisms, legal procedures, information sharing, etc., it provides useful inspiration for improving and perfecting the judicial assistance model in the GBA.

Chapter Three focuses on the representative models of inter-regional criminal judicial assistance, analyzing the applicability of feasible models in the GBA, such as the legislative model, agreement model, international convention model, and the “Framework Arrangement + Annex” model, which are concerned by the theoretical community. These perspectives provide strong theoretical support and practical reference for the construction of the criminal judicial assistance model in the GBA.

Chapter Four elaborates on the envisioned new model of inter-regional criminal judicial assistance in the GBA. By drawing inspiration from the “framework convention + protocol + appendices” model used in regional maritime projects, this paper proposes the innovative model of “framework arrangement + special agreements + appendices”. This model has clear normative boundaries, high flexibility and adaptability, and is progressively practical and sustainable, effectively addressing complex issues in practice. Additionally, this chapter delves into the implementation path of this model in practice, including the joint signing of the “Framework Arrangement for Inter-regional Criminal Judicial Assistance in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area” by the representative judicial institutions of Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao. The arrangement clarifies the basic principles, scope of cooperation, procedural mechanisms, and other key contents of inter-regional criminal judicial assistance in the GBA. Meanwhile, through the formulation of special agreements and annexes, the content of cooperation is further refined to ensure the pertinence and effectiveness of judicial assistance. It is worth noting that this article does not oppose the model law approach, but believes that it should be built on a solid foundation of good practices. Once the “Framework Arrangement + Special Agreement + Annex” model achieves certain results, it can promote the legislation of the criminal judicial assistance law in the GBA.