【作者】 洪兴文；

【导师】 李建华；

【作者基本信息】 中南大学 ， 哲学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 行政自由裁量权,作为法律授权范围内自行判断、自行选择和自行决定的行政权力,其行使过程不可避免地隐含着权力行使者的人性、价值观及道德选择向度等等,可以说,它实质上是一种“法治”授权的“人治”。同时由于其自由性、选择性、相对性和专断性的伦理特质,又可以说它是一种伦理性裁量权。由于它的“人治”和特权色彩,自存在的那天起,法律对它的认可和限制就一起对立地存在着。对行政自由裁量权的控制仅立足于行政法学的和政治学的视角是远远不够的,它还应受到伦理学的关注和伦理向度的规治,这是由其伦理特性和裁量空间的法律盲点所决定的。行政自由裁量权存在的正当性是对其进行伦理规治研究的前提。没有“存在”就没有“规治”生发的基础。人类社会选择法律来治理人性的弱点,同时又由这些有着人性弱点的人们行使自由裁量权来执行法律,如何认识和解决这个“二律背反”问题?只有从“亦善亦恶”的人性前提出发才能得到合理的诠释。另外,适度的行政自由裁量权不但满足了现代服务行政的需要,体现了正义秩序的价值诉求,而且克服了法治内在的不足,补充了法的统治。这些都使其存在得以正当。行政自由裁量权作为一种伦理性裁量权,其行使的过程,与其说是在法律规则框架内对复杂的行政事务采取何种手段、方式和程序的过程,不如说是权力行使者基于什么样的信念及价值追求的一种道德选择过程,因而必然涉及对影响道德选择的相关因素,如道德能力、行政信仰和权力运行的场合力等因素的考量,并由此探索行政自由裁量权在运行过程中可能遇到的价值冲突、伦理困境和出现的道德风险。正当存在的行政自由裁量权并不意味着其必然能够正当行使。如何保障行政自由裁量权在各种价值冲突、伦理冲突和可能出现的伦理困境面前,能够真正实现个案正义和实质正义,显然离不开伦理的支撑和道德的约束。这些伦理的支撑和道德的约束主要是通过一定的伦理原则彰现出来。具体来说,要求行政主体和行政人员遵循公正、理性、诚信、适度和责任原则。通过伦理原则的建构,与法律规则一道形成对行政自由裁量权规制的合力,使行政自由裁量权能在法律框架和道德边界内正当行使。行政自由裁量权逾越边界容易异化,其异化所导致的非正义必须加以伦理的矫治。鉴于权力自身固有的扩张性、自腐性以及权力运行环境的非纯洁性,行政自由裁量权行使中更容易出现张力、异化,甚至独断、专制、暴政等非正义。如何矫治?在分析现有的司法矫治模式的特点和局限的基础上,提出通过德性培育、责任救济、制度良善、正义环境营造等机制和路径对行政自由裁量权的“非正义”进行伦理的矫正和治理。更多还原

【Abstract】 Administrative discretion as a administrative power of administrative subjects to judge, choose and decide within the range of the authorization of laws, whose exertion process will inevitably include humanity, value and moral orientation and etc. of the executants, is actually a kind of "rule of man" authorized by "rule of law". It can be perceived as a kind of ethical discretion, due to its ethical feature of freedom, selectivity, relativity and dictatorship. Since administrative discretion is featured by "rule of man" and prerogative, the law has been both accept and restrict it since its existence. It is far from enough to discuss the restriction of administrative discretion only from the view of administrative law and politics, it should be concerned by ethics and governed by ethical dimension, which is determined by its ethical feature and legal blind spot of discretionary space.The validity of the existence of administrative discretion is the premise of ethical governance research on it. Existence served as base for governance. Human society choose law to govern the weakness of human, while the law executants also bear the human weakness. So how to recognize and solve the problem of "antinomies"? Rational explanation will be procured by from premise of "good and evil" humanity. In addition, proper administrative discretion not only satisfied modern service administration, reflecting the appealing for value on justice and order, but also overcome the intrinsic weakness of rule of law and consummates the rule of law, which makes the existence valid.As an ethical discretionary power, the exertion process of administrative discretion is not so much as a process of adopting a measure, manner and progress to deal with complicated administrative affairs under the framework of laws and regulations as a moral choice process of executants based on a kind of faith and value pursuance, which would definitely concern the analysis and consideration of relevant factors affecting moral choice, such as moral ability, administrative belief and occasions of exercising power, and further to explore the possible ethical dilemma and risks during the exertion process of administrative discretion.Rightfully existing administrative discretion does not necessarily mean it can be exercised rightfully. It is restricted in moral boundary and restrained by ethics. To ensure administrative discretion realizes individual justice and substantive justice among various value confrontation, ethic confrontation and possible ethical risks, the support and restrain of ethic is obviously indispensable, which requires the exertion of administrative discretion to follow the ethical principle of justice, rationality, honesty, moderation and responsibility. Through the construction of ethical principle, and forming a concerted efforts with the rule of law to govern the administrative discretion, the rightful exertion of administrative discretion within clear legal framework and moral boundary will be ensured.Ethical rectification must be conducted on the injustice caused by alienation of administrative discretion must. In view of the inherent dilatancy, self-decay and the impurity of power exertion environment, the exertion of administrative discretion will inevitably encounter injustice such as extension, alienation and even dictatorship, autocracy and tyranny. How to rectify? Based on the analysis of existing features and limitations of judicial rectification, ethical rectification and governance on injustice of administrative discretion are conducted through mechanism and route of moral cultivation, legal responsibility and remedy, system improvement and justice environment.更多还原