【作者】 杨晓洁；

【导师】 朱芒；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 行政法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 国务院国有资产监督管理委员会（以下简称“国务院国资委”或“国资委”）成立于2003年3月，随后截至2004年6月，全国31个省级和新疆生产建设兵团国资委全部组建。截至2012年年末，全国共组建地市级国有资产监管机构395个。国资委是在党的十六大提出“深化国有资产管理体制改革”的时代背景下出现的，根据当时《国务院机构改革方案》和《国务院关于机构设置的通知》规定，国务院授权国资委代表国家履行出资人职责，对企业国有资产履行监管职权，这一要求也为之后党的十七大、十八大所延续。在依法治国的背景下，为了进一步在法的坐标系内探寻到国资委地位及性质的对应点，笔者从形式和实质两个层面，分别对国资委的主体职权展开讨论、对国资委的行为运作进行实证分析，特别是以行政权的存在与否为区分线，着力对国资委的各类行为在进行描述的基础上加以归纳、定位，最终为从行政的角度认识国资委，进而认识国家以行政方式实现经济目的的行为，提供实证和方法论双重意义上的智识贡献。从主体上讲，在形式层面，国资委是国务院直属特设机构，属于国务院的组成部门，运用《宪法》第85条、第89条的规定进行衡量，国资委是形式意义上的行政机关。同时，进一步考察国资委作为直属特设机构的形成过程以及规定国资委职权来源的“三定方案”和《企业国有资产法》等的授权，仅从主体的形式上而言，国资委无疑是具有行政属性的。在实质层面，《企业国有资产监督管理暂行条例》、《企业国有资产法》等明确将国资委定性为“履行出资人职责的机构”，进一步考察国资委的职权内容，发现国资委的职权中也包含了依据《公司法》规定可以行使的股东职权，这是明显不属于行政职权的内容。主体职权的考察说明形式意义的行政主体并不必然构成实质意义的行政主体，国资委“履行出资人职责的机构”与行政主体之间存在不重合之处。从行为上讲，笔者实证分析了国务院国资委自2003年3月成立至2012年年末制定、颁布的138件规范性文件。在形式层面，通过梳理138件规范的制定依据、制定程序和适用对象，可明确国资委发布规范这一行为的定位，与行政活动具有高度的契合性。也即，作为中央国家资产监管机构和国务院组成部门，国资委发布规范的行为，应是行政权行使的结果。在实质层面，虑及“法定股东”和“监管主体”在国资委定位上的融合性，进一步考察138件规范的内容即成题中之义。最后发现，国资委在实质作用上并非仅仅是形式界定表现出的行政主体，也并不是通常理解的中央国有企业的股东，而是混合行使行政职权、股东职权和其他职权的综合体，这在不同的规范性文件会展现出不同的内容。通过对国资委主体职权和运作行为在形式、实质两个层面上的界定，文章明晰了国资委在法律上的性质——形式上的行政主体，实质上兼具行政、股东或其他职权的机构，这一机构实际上兼合了“直接经营+市场秩序行政”的功能。从对“行政”范围的界定及其方式来看，国资委性质的研究可以厘清行政职权的范围，进而对认识国家以企业方式实现经济目的这一类行为的性质具有积极意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 The state-owned assets supervision and administration commissionof the state council was established in2003.The state-owned assets supervision and administration commissionof the state council is one of the departments of the state council.According to the clause85and the clause89of the Constitutional LAW,the commission is a subject of administrative. However, as <TheInstitutional Reform Program of the State Council2003> mentioned, thestate-owned assets supervision and administration commission of thestate council is not an administrative agent, or a common enterprise, andthe commission has special character. What is the special character?There is no direct answer in <The Institutional Reform Program of theState Council2003>.In my view, researching the character of the commission by studyingthe clause85and the clause89of the Constitutional LAW is just abeginning, not an end. As the commission is simultaneously the shareholder of the state-owned enterprise, it must have other kind ofactions besides administrative act. What’s the substantive meaning of theact made by the commission? In this thesis, I try to find the answer bystudying the <the state-owned assets law>, normative documentspublished by the state-owned assets supervision and administrationcommission of the state council during2003to the end of2012, and otherdocuments related to the commission.In the introduction, I explain why I choose the analysis of thecommission as my study. By generalizing the shareholder theory of thecorporative law and the administration of the administrative law, Iconstruct the framework of the thesis.From the second to the fourth chapter, my logical line is “the formaldefinition---the substantive definition---the empirical definition”. Firstly,according to the clause85and the clause89of the Constitutional LAW,by researching the legal functions and the history of the commission, Ifind the commission is a subject of administrative. Secondly, according tothe clauses of the Corporation Law, the commission is the shareholder ofthe SOEs. Therefore, some acts made by the commission can be regardedas shareholder acts. The character of the remainder acts can be ascribed tothe administrative acts or others. Thirdly, by studying the actual actionsmade by the commission, I conclude the commission is a subject ofadministrative substantively. In the fifth chapter, I conclude the commission is simultaneouslythe shareholder and the administration department. Such practical actionscan enrich the theory of administration law in China.In the conclusion, I mentioned the state-owned assets supervisionand administration commission of the state council has the shareholderand administrative functions, which is contrary to the provision of <TheInstitutional Reform Program of the State Council2003>, and mayjeopardize the democracy and market economy. By analyzing the specificbehavior of the commission, and ruling the behavior according to itsnature is the way to regulate the commission. Considering the importanceof the stated-owned assets, properly regulating the commission willpromote the rule of law in our country.更多还原