【作者】 周游；

【导师】 杨海坤；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 公用事业的公法治理所要研究的对象是政府公权力部门(规制机构)、市场运营商(直接给付者)与消费者之间的三角关系,它是一种公权与私权在不同层面、不同场域中的多元合作和制约关系。与传统公法强调的公私二元对立关系相比,二者所面临的公权力治理危机的程度、所依赖的国家模型、所运用的治理模式均有重大的区分。传统公私二元对立关系以“控权论”为理论基础,依赖“自由法治国家”模型,运用干预行政的模式对公权力与私权利之间的关系进行治理,它关注的是:公权力要消极运行,不可过分干涉私权利的天然空间,并且随时保持公私之间的对峙关系,严格区别公私之间的界限。然而随着经济衰退、公民权觉醒、生存需求的大幅提升等现实的涌现,尤其是社会保险、社会救助等福利制度的不断涌现,使得公法学研究所依赖的国家模型开始转型,从“自由法治国家”迈向“社会法治国家”。“社会法治国家”模型的肇始是出于国家对公民的“生存照顾”,即当公民的生存权利面临危险之际,国家不再作为消极的看客,而是运用公共财政努力提供社会保险、社会救助等一系列的保障措施,对私权利的生存进行及时、全面、完整的给付。然而,作为一种描述性概念,传统理论将公用事业,诸如铁路、供电、供水、市政公交等不同行业都纳入其范围,却模糊了给付行政应有的界限。这忽视了以下几个因素:第一,公用事业的治理机制中,需要市场机制的运作,这已经远远超过了对公民进行“生存照顾”的界限;第二,公用事业治理要解决的关系,远非简单通过公权力对私权利进行及时、全面、完整的单方面的给付关系,而是变成了公权力与市场给付主体的私权利、消费者的私权利之间的复杂三角关系,同时,传统的公私二元对立关系也正朝着公私多元合作关系迈进;第三,极权主义的专断危险,也始终伴随着给付行政的兴起与泛化使用的过程中。在“社会法治国家”模型中,为处理更加复杂的多元公私合作关系,应当存在两种不同的公法治理模式:其一是给付行政模式,基于“生存照顾”的国家义务建构社会保障体系;其二是担保行政模式,基于市场自由原则建构审慎的规制体系,让政府成为具备高度自然垄断性质的公用事业的规制者与担保者——规制者的角色强调市场面向,以发生在政府公权力部门与市场主体之间的规制措施为核心;担保者强调消费者面向,以政府公权力部门对普通消费者承担的担保责任为核心。这两种模式应当并行不悖,且适用于不同的领域。尤其在有着高度集权体制的我国,在公用事业领域向来政企难以分离,如果不承认这两种模式划分的合理性,那么一味的强调基于“生存照顾”的给付行政模式同样适用于公用事业领域,势必造成公权力的过分专制,形成公用事业领域市场化的强大阻碍,最终导致公用事业领域盛行的公权力无德与腐败问题无法根治。担保行政模式的提出并非空中楼阁,它是在充分追溯给付行政模式的理论来源之后,指出“生存照顾”的限定对于给付行政模式的运行至关重要,而在超越了“生存照顾”的公用事业领域无限泛化给付行政模式的使用,无疑是对给付行政的一种误读。担保行政模式的治理之路也绝非缘木求鱼,特别在我国现实的语境下,当公用事业领域的行政垄断愈加严重的时候,更加需要公权力的治理模式进行转变。公用事业的担保行政模式至少具备以下几点特征:第一,国家角色有了一定的变化,原则上不再亲自生产与执行公用事业给付,从大包大揽的直接给付者,转而成为尊重市场的规制者与担保者;第二,充分发挥市场对公用事业治理的作用,积极寻求公私合作治理,减少私权利进入公权力治理体系的壁垒,重视社会自我规制体系的建构与培育;第三,强调公众参与机制产生的利益代表,以弥补传统行政诉讼机制在公用事业基本服务权保障方面的不足;第四,以行政契约为关键手段来成为担保者,尤其是公用事业的特许经营契约将扮演非常重要的角色;第五,从直接给付者变成担保者,并非意味着公用事业领域完全的“去任务化”或者“私有化”,而是强调减少私人资金进入公用事业投资渠道的壁垒,以及公权力在公用事业领域的所有权与经营权的分离;第六,从直接给付者变成担保者,并不意味着国家责任在公用事业领域的逃遁,恰恰相反,通过成熟的规制体系与公众参与机制,在尊重市场机制的逻辑前提下,国家担保责任会变得更加清晰,其中包括两个层面:对于市场而言,负有担保公平竞争的责任、对市场准入与退出的监管责任、临时接管责任等;对于消费者而言,负有的担保信息发布的责任、担保持续与普遍服务的责任、担保合理定价与收费的责任、补充赔偿责任等。更多还原

【Abstract】 The public governance of public utilities takes the triangle relationship of public power(regulation institution),market operator(supplier) and consumers as research object, which is a dimentional cooperation and restriction of public and private power on different levels and in different areas. Compared with the traditional public and private antagnism, this public governance differs in the exrtent of governing crisis, the state mode it depends on and the governance model.Based on“Control of power theory”, the traditional public and private antagnism adopted the model of“free state under the rule of law”, and governed the relationship between public and private powers by the mode of“order administration”.It focused on the positive operation of public power, no overinterference in private power, keeping their antagonistic relationship and the bounds between them. However,“order administration”in the“free state under the rule of law”will definitely be in trouble with the economic recession, awakening of the civil rights, and the increasing demand for living.Especially the constant appearance of social insurance and security has forced the state model on which the study of public law depends to evolve from“free state under the rule of law”to“social welfare state”.“Social Welfare State”model is originated from social welfare state being obligated to look after their people, namely, when civil living rights are faced with danger, rather than being a stand-by, the state supplies a series of security measures like social insurance and relief with the help of public finance to guarantee the existence of private rights timely, thoroughly and completely. This governance model of public power is called“supply administration”. It is a major breakthrough for the states in modern times to change the role from“order administration”to“supply administration”. It means that modern civil living rights has been backed and guaranteed by national public power, and public power has also changed from negtive “night watchman”to“positive supplier”. Then follows the problem that“supply administration”which based on survival caring should only be effective in the social security system from which public utilities-an area appearing in modern society-is widely divergentFacing this doubt, traditional theory has brought public utilities such as railway, electricity supplying, water supplying, municipal public transit,etc. into“supply administration”. But it has overlooked the folling two important elements: first, market mechanism is needed in the governance of public utilities, which is far beyond survival caring; second, what public utilities governance is expected to solve is not just the instant, thorough and complete supplying of one side from public power to private power,but the complex triangle relationship of public power, private rights of market supplier and private rights of consumers. Meanwhile,the traditional public and private antagnism is going to become public and private parternership. Because of market mechanism, there are indeed some flaws in logic to bring public utilities into“supply administration”. Even Ernst Forsthoff, the originator of the theory of“social welfare state looking after their people”finally self-examined and corrected his own statement, and added three important items:first, the government should allow individuals to take on whatever they can on their own and take supplementary measures if they alone cannot take on; second, the governments at a higher level should do the same to the governments at a lower level. The self-support of individuals and lower governments cannot be replaced by the assit of the state and higher governments.So in“social welfare states”, in order to deal with more complex public and private parternership, two different public governance pattens should be adopted: one is“supply administration”which is based on the national obligation of looking after people to establish social security system; the other is“guarantee administration”which is based on the principle of free market to set up cautious regulation system so as to make the government a regulator and guarantor of public utilities with highly natural monopoly.These two pattens are supposed to run parallel to each other and are applied to many fields.Especially in our country with a high centralization, it’s always difficult to separate government from individual in the fields of public utilities.If the rationality of seperation of the two pattens is not acknowledged and“supply administration”applying to public utilities is blindly emphasized, public power is bound to be over centralized and to become a big obstacle to marketing of public utilities and finally leads to the impudence and corruption of public power prevailing in public utilities, which cannot be eradicated.It is thus clear that the proposure of guarantee administration is not a castle in the air. It points out that survival caring is of utmost importance for the operation of“supply administration model”after tracing back to the theoretical origin of the model. But abusing this model without limits in public utilities is undoubtedly to misunderstand it.The governance of“guarantee administration”is absolutely not milking a bull.Especially under the practical circumstances of our country, it’s more necessary to explore the transformation of public power governance model afte public utilities has become the disastrous consequence of“Administrative Monopoly”.This model has at least the following several features:first, the state is playing an auxiliary role, changing from a direct supplier to a regulator and guarantor with respect for market; second, make full use of market influence on public utilities governance, and actively search for the chances of private parternership governance. Decrease the chances of private rights intervening in the barrier of public rights governance system, and pay more attention to the construction and cultivation of social self-regulation system.Third, focus on interest representation model produced by public participation mechanism to make up for the weakness of traditional administrative proceedings in guaranteeing the rights of access to utility supply. Fourth, become a guarantor from a direct supplier doesn’t mean the escape of state responsibility from public utilities.On the contrary,by the mature regulation system and public participation mechanism with respect for market mechanism, the responsibility of state guarantee will be more clear.It consists of two levels:for the market, ensuring justice competition, supervising market access and withdrawl, and taking over temporarily; for the consumers, ensuring information issue, consistent and universal service, reasonable pricing and charging, supplement and compensation,etc.更多还原