【作者】 周隆基；

【导师】 任喜荣；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 人类对平等的追求既是社会进步的标志，也是社会发展的动力。在追求和实现平等的过程中，歧视无疑是最大的障碍。所以，从某种意义上说，平等与反歧视指向的是同一范畴。由于歧视肇始于人类社会产生之初，并且在社会发展的进程中一直以不同的形态存在于社会生活的诸多领域，所以我们必须要对歧视进行多角度、全方位的研究。歧视既可能以行为的形式存在，也可能以制度的形式存在。西方国家对制度性歧视的关注由来已久，从某种意义上来讲，西方国家反歧视法的研究对象主要就是以立法歧视为代表的制度性歧视。但是我国传统文化对制度和权力的忠诚，使得长期以来，我们更多的是将研究视角局限于个体之间的歧视行为，而忽视了以制度形态存在的歧视。随着我国的社会改革向纵深推进，在制度改革的过程中，我国在户籍制度、社会保障制度、公共教育制度、婚姻制度、公务员招考制度等方面存在的对公民权利的歧视性安排也逐渐“浮出水面”，甚至在一定范围内造成了国家机关和公民之间的紧张关系。实际上，制度性歧视对公民平等权利的侵害、对社会公正的破坏以及由此而引发的社会冲突及其非法律化解决途径等问题，往往要比单纯的歧视行为更加严重。所以，为了促进国家机关与公民之间关系的良性发展，实现构建社会主义和谐社会的战略目标，本文选取制度性歧视的法律规制作为研究主题。本文的研究主旨是在审视制度性歧视的内涵、类型、成因等问题的基础上，对制度性歧视的法律规制制度进行深入的探讨，拓宽反歧视法的研究视野，并且以制度性歧视的法律规制为契机，寻求具有中国特色社会主义性质的宪法实施路径。为了实现本文的研究主旨，本文从五个方面对制度性歧视的法律规制进行了论述，即：制度性歧视的基本定位、制度性歧视的类型分析、制度性歧视的成因、制度性歧视的司法规制、制度性歧视的立法规制。首先，本文对制度性歧视进行了基本定位，将制度性歧视界定为由于国家正式规则的认可或者公权力主体的推行，使一定社会群体持续遭受普遍的、规范化的不合理对待。之所以在中国的语境下研究制度性歧视，一方面是因为我国与西方国家在对歧视的概念界定上存在差异，另一方面是因为我国建构论法治发展路径对制度的过度依赖使制度性歧视在中国有广阔的生存空间。制度性歧视包涵三个构成要素：公权力主体实施、以制度形态存在以及不合理的区别对待。与普通的歧视行为相比，制度性歧视具有强制性、群体性、稳定性、形式合法性和特殊历史背景下的正当性等特点。在此基础上，本文还将制度性歧视与公法歧视、行为性歧视、反向歧视等概念进行了对比分析。其次，本文从实证角度对制度性歧视的类型进行了划分。立基于不同的观察视角，可以对制度性歧视进行不同的类型划分。本文通过对社会生活中形形色色的制度性歧视的考察，从制度性歧视的存在形态、侵权类型、侵权主体三个观察视角，分别将制度性歧视划分为正式制度性歧视（以规则中的同性恋歧视为例）和非正式制度性歧视（以公务员招考制度中的学历歧视为例）；对公民权利的制度性歧视（以低保信息永久公示制度中的隐私权歧视为例）、对政治权利的制度性歧视（以选举权制度性歧视为例）、对社会权利的制度性歧视（以高考招生制度中的受教育权制度性歧视为例）；立法机关制度性歧视（以《刑法》第236条中的的性别歧视为例）、行政机关制度性歧视（以户籍制度中的基本公共服务制度性歧视为例）、司法机关制度性歧视（以司法解释中的身份歧视为例）。第三，本文分析了制度性歧视的成因。制度性歧视的成因既有现实原因，也有历史原因，既有客观原因，又有主观原因。本文从价值判断成因、历史成因、直接成因等三个方面对制度性歧视的形成原因进行了分析。制度性歧视的价值判断成因主要是平等原则的模糊性和平等权利的开放性；制度性歧视的历史成因则是权利文化的缺失和身份社会的扭曲发展；制度性歧视的直接成因则是由于公权力主体对社会歧视现象的认可、公权力的政策性考量以及公权力违法行使。对制度性歧视成因进行分析，并不是要着重强调各个因素在制度性歧视形成过程中的作用。恰恰相反，本文要表明，制度性歧视的成因是复杂的，是各种因素综合作用的结果。以上是对制度性歧视基本内容的论述，这也是制度性歧视法律规制的前提。接下来，本文开始关注制度性歧视法律规制的具体制度，选取了司法规制和立法规制两个视角，通过对相关规制制度的研究，实现构建完善的制度性歧视法律规制制度体系的目标。关于制度性歧视司法规制制度的研究，本文选取行政诉讼制度为切入点，因为行政诉讼制度作为我国宪法实施制度的重要组成部分，是保护公民宪法基本权利的重要制度载体。本文认为，制度性歧视的司法规制为行政诉讼制度改革提供了新的契机。具体来说，在受案范围上，行政诉讼的受案范围应当放弃具体行政行为标准+人身权、财产权被侵犯标准的判断标准，采用行政权行使+合法权益被侵犯的受案范围确定标准；在司法规制的限度上，行政诉讼应当避免司法克制主义和司法能动主义的单项选择，而是在坚守司法克制主义的理念下，采用司法能动的方法，争取最佳的司法审查效果。关于制度性歧视立法规制制度的研究，本文在对制度性歧视立法规制的内涵和范围进行界定的基础上，选取了备案审查制度和提请审查制度进行研究。本文认为，当前我国立法监督制度仍然以维护客观法律秩序为首要目的，无论是立法规定还是具体的立法监督实践都忠实的体现着这一目的。而制度性歧视的立法规制制度的目的则要逐步从维护客观法律秩序转向保障公民基本权利，对我国现行的立法的备案审查制度和提请审查制度从审查范围、审查标准、审查程序等方面进行重新的设计。在这一目的的指引下，制度性歧视的备案审查制度要确立以平等权审查为核心的审查标准、引入裁决机制解决备案审查权之间的冲突以及完善备案审查的具体程序。而制度性歧视的提请审查制度则要在确立以平等权审查为核心的审查标准的前提下，明确审查主体的范围，改革制度性歧视提请审查启动机制，赋予这一制度更多的民主性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Human’s pursuit of equality is the symbol as well as the driving force of thesocial development. Discrimination is beyond doubt the biggest obstacle on ourjourney of aspiring after and realizing equality. Equality and anti-discrimination, in asense, fall within the scope of the same category. It is necessary for us to investigatediscrimination comprehensively from multiple perspectives because discriminationwas born in the beginning of human society and lived in different domains of oursocial life in various forms. Discrimination exists in the form of human’s behavior aswell as institutions. Western countries have been focusing on institutionalizeddiscrimination and the subject of their research on anti-discrimination law is theinstitutionalized discrimination represented by legislative discrimination. However,domestic research has been centering on the discriminative behaviors amongindividuals and neglecting institutionalized discrimination because of the loyalty ofour traditional culture to institutions and power. With the deepening of our socialreform, it is gradually unfolded that the discrimination on civil rights hides in ourhousehold registration system, social security system, public education system,marriage system and our enrollment, examination and assessment system of publicemployees, which caused tense relations between citizens and state organs within acertain range. As a matter of fact, institutionalized discrimination brings more seriousresults than simple behavior of discrimination does in the issues of violating civilequal rights and social justice as well as the subsequent social conflict and illegalsolutions to them. Therefore, this thesis takes the legal regulations of institutionalizeddiscrimination as the subject matter in order to promote the healthy development ofthe relations between citizens and state organs as well as to realize the strategic goalof constructing harmonious socialist society. Based on the analysis of the connotation,type and cause of institutionalized discrimination, the thesis aims to probe into thelegal regulations of institutionalized discrimination, widen the horizon of research onanti-discrimination law and seeks the approach to implementing the constitution natured as socialism with Chinese characteristics.The thesis discusses the legal regulations of institutionalized discrimination fromfive aspects, namely, the basic position, the type, the cause, the judicial regulations,and the legislative regulations of institutionalized discrimination.First, the thesis defines institutionalized discrimination as continued, general, andnormalized unreasonable treatments which are recognized by laws and regulations orexercised through public bodies to certain social groups. The study of institutionalizeddiscrimination in China is developed because we have different definition ofdiscrimination from that of western countries and institutionalized discrimination hasvast living space due to the excessive dependence of constructional rules of lawdevelopment approach on institutions. Institutionalized discrimination consists ofthree elements: implementation by public power organs; existed in the form ofinstitution; unreasonable and unfair treatments. Compared with ordinary behavior ofdiscrimination, institutionalized discrimination can be characterized as beingmandatory, collective，stable，formally legal and be featured as legitimacy created inspecial background. The thesis also makes contrastive analysis of institutionalizeddiscrimination and public law discrimination,discrimination behaviors and inversediscrimination.Second, the thesis divides the types of institutionalized discrimination from theempirical perspective. Through the analysis of institutionalized discrimination ofvarious types in social life, the thesis classifies institutionalized discrimination fromthe perspective of existing form, types of tort and subject of tort，as the formalinstitutionalized discrimination (a case study of homosexual discrimination in rule),the informal institutionalized discrimination(a case study of educational qualificationdiscrimination in the enrollment, examination and assessment system of publicemployees); the institutionalized discrimination of civil rights(a case study of privacydiscrimination in the permanent announcement system of the information of basicliving allowances), the institutionalized discrimination of political rights(a case studyof the institutionalized discrimination in election system), the institutionalizeddiscrimination of social rights(a case study of the institutionalized discrimination of rights to education in the admissions system of college entrance examination);theinstitutionalized discrimination in legislative system(a case study of the sexdiscrimination in Article236in Criminal Law), the institutionalized discrimination inadministrative organs (a case study of the institutionalized discrimination in basicpublic service in household registration system), and the institutionalizeddiscrimination in judicial organs(a case study of identification discrimination injudicial interpretation).Third, the thesis analyses the reasons of the institutionalized discrimination fromthe perspective of value judgmental reason, historical reason and direct reason,concluding that the reasons could be summarized as realistic and historical ones, orsubjective and objective ones. The value judgmental reason for the institutionalizeddiscrimination is the vagueness of equality principle and the openness of equal rights,the historical reason is the deletion of right culture and distorted development of thesociety focusing on status, and the direct reason is the recognition of holders of publicpower for social discriminating phenomena, policy concerns of public power andillegal abuse of public power. The above analysis is not meant to emphasize theimportance of each element functioning in the process of the institutionalizeddiscrimination, instead, attempts to highlight the complexity and comprehensivenessof the reasons.The foregoing is about the main content of the institutionalized discrimination,which constitutes the premise for the legal regulation of institutionalizeddiscrimination. The thesis continues to investigate the specific rules and regulations inthe legal regulation of institutionalized discrimination, from the perspective of judicialregulation and legislative regulation and aims to construct a very complete system ofthe legal regulation of institutionalized discrimination from the study of relevantregulations.As to the study of judicial regulation in the institutionalized discrimination, thethesis takes administrative litigation as the breakthrough point, because it is animportant carrier of system to protect the basic rights of citizens, as one importantconstituent of the implementation system of our constitution. The thesis concludes that the judicial regulation in the institutionalized discrimination provides a chance forthe reform of our administrative litigation. In regard to the scope of accepted cases,we should adopt new standard of implementation of administrative power plusviolation of legal rights rather than the old standard of specific administrativebehavior plus violation of personal rights and property rights. As for the limit ofjudicial regulation, administrative litigation should avoid adopting either judicialrefrain or judicial activism, but take the approach of judicial activism to achieve thebest result of judicial review on the basis of adhering to the concept of judicial refrain.The thesis investigates the filing and inspecting system and submitting andinspecting system on the basis of defining the connotation and scope of the legalregulation of institutionalized discrimination. It is concluded that the currentlegislative supervision system still takes maintaining the objective legal order as thesupreme goal which is reflected by legislative regulations and specific legislativesupervision practice. However, the purpose of the legislative regulation ofinstitutionalized discrimination is steered gradually from maintaining the objectivelegal order to guaranteeing the basic rights of common citizens. Therefore, the presentresearch redesigns the current filing and inspecting system and submitting andinspecting system, centering on the inspecting scope, standard and procedure. Basedon the foregoing analysis, it is put forward that, as for filing and inspecting system,new inspecting standard with focus on equal right inspecting should be established,adjudicative mechanism is introduced to resolve the conflict between filing andinspecting，inspecting procedure should be improved．However, the submitting andinspecting system requires that on the premise of establishing the inspecting standardwith focus on equal right inspecting, the range of the inspecting body should bedetermined, the starting mechanism of the submitting and inspecting system ofinstitutionalized discrimination should be reformed and more democracy should bebestowed to the submitting and inspecting system.更多还原