【作者】 华燕；

【导师】 胡玉鸿；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 行政失权，是指行政主体对相对人既有法律资格的限制或剥夺。其以相对人的权利能力为作用对象，而非通常意义上对具体权利的限制。权利能力的丧失，实质是法律人格的减损，由此形成一种法律上的“负身份”，意味着法律能力的减损、法律地位的下降。行政失权以行政确权、赋权为实施前提，强调在承认相对人原本享有权利能力的基础上对既有资格的剥夺，作用结果表现为使相对人“失其本所得”，由此处于一种不仅“不能与凡人齐”、且亦“不能与自身先前同”的不利状态。行政失权是行政主体组织和管理社会的有效手段。权利能力的国家赋予性、公法人格的特殊性及个体正当行为的可期待性，为行政失权制度的存立提供了正当基础。尽管人性尊严与平等已成为现代立法普遍接受的理念，可生物学意义上的人与法律意义人的区分，向来是理解法律人格的前提。这种区分正鲜明揭示出人格从来都是由法律赋予的，权利能力制度乃是一项实在法上的人为设计结果。确切地说，权利能力是国家用以作用于社会成员的一种调控手段，权利能力的有无、多少，甚至特定情形下的具体化、类型化，均是国家意志的作用的结果。尤其在公法关系中，社会成员一方面因自然属性以人的资格参与法律关系，另一方面又因政治等社会属性以成员资格参与特殊关系；这种一般法律关系与特殊法律关系的区分主要通过一般权利能力与特殊权利能力的制度设计来体现。共同体可根据角色承担的要求不同，进行各种特殊权利能力的配置；同时，权利能力暗含着国家对个体正当行为的合理期待。从权利的成本观念及共同善的维系角度，国家在配置权利能力时均要求个体在享有权利能力的同时，也负担正当行为的责任。由此也构成通过行政失权对不当行为的个体剥夺其权利能力的正当性理由。实践中，行政失权形式繁多。从失权的原因事由上看，有因法定客观条件成就而导致的自动失权，有因相对人主观意愿决定的主动失权，更为常见的是因相对人自身赋权条件缺失而导致的被动失权。行政失权的内容涉及公民能力、特定职业能力、特定行为资格等特殊权利能力，也包括某种程度上的一般权利能力。行政失权存在多层次的作用形式，既可能表现为对特殊赋权的撤回，使相对人丧失某类正身份，回复到一般法律主体的地位；也可能是对一般权利能力的限制，从而使相对人背负某类负身份。行政失权，在严格意义上是作为一种“类概念”被使用，基于失权原因事由不同、行政作用模式的差异，不同形式的失权行为法律性质并不完全相同。资格罚固然是行政失权最集中、最典型的表现形式，但实践中行政失权还可能体现为行政不利处分行为、行政确认行为、甚至作为其它法律行为附随后果而存在。鉴于行政失权对相对人权益的重大影响，有必要从立法形式、制度内容及实施程序等方面对失权制度进行系统规范。在立法形式上，应提高行政失权规范的法律位阶，强调对失权的设定权采取法律保留原则，明确只有法律和行政法规方得设定失权条款，且应严格规范各规范性文件中对失权的具体规定内容；在行政失权内容设置上，应充分保障人性尊严，并遵循比例原则，妥适地界定失权内容边界；在行政失权行为的实施环节，要全面系统构建正当程序，尤其要完善相对人申请听证程序、行政主体的告知及登记公示等环节，以有效防范行政权滥用，保障相对人权益。从行政作用的系统性考虑，且也为更全面地保障相对人权益，行政失权还应有相配套的法律回复制度，使相对人被剥夺或限制的权利能力存在恢复的可能与保障。法律回复制度，包括对行政失权行为的法律救济，及对行政失权状态的法律消解两个层面。前者通过复议、诉讼等途径，撤销违法行政失权行为的效力，回复相对人被错误限制或剥夺的权利能力；后者则强调在行政失权行为合法存续的前提下，对失权状态的消解。行政失权法律回复的运作，与行政确认（许可）、行政失权一起，构成了行政权对相对人权利能力从“赋权”到“失权”再到“复权”的完整过程。更多还原

【Abstract】 Administrative incapacitation refers to the loss or restrictions of the counterpart’slegal capacity under the effects exerted by administrative power. The incapacitation, inessence, means the loss of legal personality. As a consequence, a “negative identity” inlaws is formed. Besides, it means the loss of legal capacity and the decrease of legal status.Administrative incapacitation stresses the deprival of the counterpart’s existingqualifications on the basis of admitting his or her original legal capacity. The result of suchan effect is demonstrated as the counterpart’s “loss of what should have been obtained”.Administrative incapacitation is an effective method adopted by administrative subjectiveorganizations in society management and control.Endowment by the state laws, specific legal capacity theories and specialty of publiclegal personality provide theoretical support for the existence and establishment ofadministrative incapacitation system. Legal capacity system is a man-designed result inpositive law. The absence and density of legal capacity and even concretization andcategorization of legal capacity under specific situations are all the results of the effects ofnational wills. In particular, in the relation of public laws, on the one hand, social membersparticipate into legal relationship with the qualification as human beings due to theirnatural attribute; on the other hand, they participate into special relationship withmembership due to political and other social attributes. In addition, because of non-selfgovernance of public laws, behavior capacity unifies with legal capacity. The restrictionson behavior qualifications then constitute the deprival of legal capacity.Administrative incapacitation involves civic competence, specific vocational abilityand even some abilities related to civilian activities. Administrative incapacitation hasmulti-layered forms of effect exertion which can be demonstrated as depriving thecounterpart of certain positive identity and causing him or her return to the status ofcommon legal subject through depriving special legal capacity. It can even be manifested in the form of further restricting general legal capacity, thus causing the counterpart toundertake certain negative identity. Administrative incapacitation, in a strict sense, is usedas one “general concept”, which refers to all the forms of administrative powers’ effectexertion for depriving or restricting the counterpart’s legal capacity. Qualification penaltyis indeed the most centralized and typical expression of administrative incapacitation.However, in practice, Administrative incapacitation can also be demonstrated to be adverseadministrative punishment behavior and even one factual behavior existing with theconsequences of other legal behaviors.Considering the major influence of administrative incapacitation on the counterpart’srights, it is necessary to carry out systematic regulations on incapacitation system from theperspective of legislation form, contents of the system and implementation procedures andso on. In terms of legislation forms, the legal ranks of the regulation on administrativeincapacitation should be improved. Besides, it should be emphasized that the enacting lawson incapacitation should adopt legal reservation. It should be clarified that only laws andadministrative laws set up clauses about legal capacity loss and strictly regulate thedetailed stipulations about right loss in normative files.Considering from the perspective of the systematicness of administrative effects andfor the purpose of more comprehensively guaranteeing the counterpart’s rights,administrative incapacitation should be matched with corresponding legal restitute systemso that it can provide possibility of restitution and guarantee for the counterpart’s legalcapacity which is deprived or restricted. In this way, the complete process from “legalcapacity endowment” to “legal capacity loss” and then to “legal capacity restitution” forthe counterpart under the effect of administrative power can be constructed.更多还原