【作者】 相焕伟；

【导师】 肖金明；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 当代公共行政向民主化、服务化、民营化、程序化、效率化等方向的转型,使得以平等、交涉、合意为基本特征的协商行政如雨后春笋般涌现,如协商制定规章、重大行政决策协商、民主恳谈会、协商颁发许可证、双方同意的命令、行政争议解决的ADR机制、行政和解、反垄断协商执法等,它们已经晃动了以行政法律关系的不平等性、行政权的垄断性、行政过程的单向性、行政行为的单方性为基本特征的传统行政法的根基,使得传统行政法已经不能有效解释广泛存在的协商行政现象,导致传统行政法陷入了范式危机。因此,引入库恩的“范式”理论,并将协商行政与范式理论对接是化解传统行政法范式危机的不二选择。由于范式所具有的认知、塑型和发展功能,以范式理论作为工具研究协商行政具有重要理论和现实意义。首先,可以从相对宏观的层面来研究协商行政,抽象出协商行政的基本范畴,形成协商行政的“概念-判断-推理”,为形形色色的作为“新类型的事实”的协商行政现象提供统一的认知方法、标准和模型。其次,可以站在行政法发展史的角度来看待协商行政,吸引具有相同旨趣和信仰的研究者进行以协商行政为学术主题的研究,拓展协商行政的适用疆域,从而推动行政法的发展。实际上,库恩提出的“范式”并不像多数人宣扬的那样含混复杂,他不过是将范式的原初意涵——范例或模型——创造性运用于科学哲学史领域罢了。在库恩那里,范式就是一种共同体公认的科学成就,它构成指导常规科学的理论模型。除了自身的理论“美感”外一项科学成就只有具备以下两个条件才能成为范式：其一,它必须具备充分的社会历史条件；其二,它必须比传统范式更具优势。虽然库恩的范式理论主要是在自然科学尤其是物理学的科学革命的意义上提出的。但凡是可以称为科学领域的地方均有范式理论的“用武之地”,因而范式理论可以“嫁接”到社会科学领域。事实上,它也早已被政治学、社会学、公共管理学等学科的学者所运用。但由于社会科学毕竟不同于自然科学——自然科学是关于“自然”、关于“客观”的科学,而社会科学是关于“社会”、关于“主观”的科学,因而库恩范式理论在社会科学领域的“嫁接”不可能是无缝的,需要进行创造性“修剪”。与自然科学领域不同,包括行政法学在内的社会科学领域的范式适用具有多层次性、多语境性、范式之间的相容性、范式转换的量增性等特征。作为行政民主化语境下的一项科学成就,协商行政已经构成了区别于高权行政、传统参与行政的一种新的行政法范式。这是因为：第一,协商行政其行政法律关系的平等性、行政权的非垄断型、行政过程的交涉性以及行政行为的合意性等特征已经显示出不同于传统行政的、特有的理论美感。第二,主体间性理论、协商民主理论、治理理论以及平衡理论为协商行政提供了多学科的理论基础；国家任务的变迁、对行政裁量权进行适度规制的需要以及公共行政的当代转型为协商行政提供了丰厚的社会基础；行政立法、行政执法、行政救济等领域普遍展开的协商实践为协商行政提供了充分的范例支撑。第三,与传统行政相比,协商行政不仅能够化解传统行政法“合法性解释模式”的困境,通过行政过程实现行政的自我合法性,而且能够增加行政的可接受性进而实现行政效率的均衡提高,显示了强大的范式优势。当然,新事物的出现必定是一个前进性与曲折性相统一的过程,新范式的出现也是这样。在面对协商行政这一行政法的新范式时,传统行政范式也不会“束手就擒”,支撑传统行政范式的“行政权不可处分原理”、“利益多元主义理论”向协商行政发出了理论诘难。但在行政国家背景下,“行政权不可处分原理”已经不攻自破。实际上,也恰恰是对多元利益诉求的承认才使得协商行政变得必要和可能。然而不可否认,在社会科学领域,任何范式都存在一定的局限性。就作为行政法范式的协商行政,其潜在缺陷主要体现在协商主体的能力不平等、协商成为行政之“累”、行政公共性和公平性的减损等方面；但“瑕不掩瑜”,协商行政之“瑕”可以通过范式所蕴含的规则和程序所“消解”。一项取得范式地位的科学成就必然是由诸多理论要素构成的严整的理论体系。要想真正全面认识该范式并运用它为常规科学解谜,就必须理解该范式所蕴含的诸理论要素。作为行政法的新范式,协商行政的理论要素包括行政法律关系与相对方法律地位、行政过程与方式、行政原则与方法、行政程序与效力、适用范围及与传统行政的衔接等内容。其中,协商行政法律关系是行政主体与相对方在平等基础上的互动关系,行政相对方法律地位体现为对行政过程的实质参与；协商行政的过程是行政主体与相对方相互了解与理解、沟通与对话、博弈与妥协的复杂过程,行政行为以行政主体与相对方合意为特征；协商行政尤其应当强调自愿、平等、公开、诚信、关联性等原则,并以利益衡量为基本方法；协商行政的程序应当以交往理性为价值、以宽容为理念、以相对方扩权为侧重。协商行政的效力包括内部效力与外部效力两个方面,就内部效力而言,协商达成的合意应当对行政主体和相对方均有约束力；就外部效力而言,经协商的行政行为并不能免于司法审查。当然,协商行政有其特定的适用场域,并且,在协商不能无法达成行政目标的情况下,还需要传统行政的“出场”。由于行政法之根生长在各国具体的生活世界中,协商行政在我国的范式生成必须立足于我国特殊的行政生态。协商行政在我国具有重要的文化基因；宪法规范的支撑、政治协商制度的广泛实践、“行政案件不适用调解”的松动、行政复议法的协商转向、国家赔偿法的协商转向以及其他规范支持为协商行政范式生成提供了重要的制度资源。我国协商行政范式生成的策略包括转变强制行政的思维、破除相关制度障碍、实现听证制度的“协商化”以及加强公民社会建设等。当然,协商行政的范式生成对我国行政法的影响将是结构性的,它将实现行政法理念的转变、理论的革新和制度的转型,并将推动我国行政法治走向“行政共和主义”。更多还原

【Abstract】 The modern administration has converted to democratization, privatee-operating, procedure and efficiency, making cooperating administration featuring in equality, interaction, compromise and consensus sprung up, such as consultation on regulation, administrative decision-making, license, command and dispute and antitrust enforcement, which has shaken the foundation of traditional administrative law, which has been in crisis and unable to explain the widespread negotiating administration, characterized by inequality and unilateral. Therefore, the introduction and integration of Kuhn’s "paradigm" theory into traditional administrative theory is the only choice.Considering the cognitive, forming and developing function of paradigm, it could be used as an important tool in studying negotiating administration both theoretically and practically. First, paradigm can be used to research on negotiating administration from macro level, abstract basic category of the negotiating administration, form the theory of "concept-judgment-reasoning", and provide unified cognitive method, standard and model for new administrative phenomenon. Second, paradigm can attract researchers with the same interest and faith engaged in academic research about negotiating administration, expanding territory of administration and promoting the development of administrative law. In fact, Kuhn’s "paradigm" was not obscure as most people declared. He only explored the original meaning of paradigm-model, and applied it in the field of history of philosophy of science creatively.Kuhn thought paradigm was a kind of widely recognized scientific achievement, which constituted a model to guide routine science. In addition to the integrity of the theory, a scientific achievement must meet two requirements if it were called paradigm:First, it must be supported by sufficient theory and practical experience; second, it must be able to solve "abnormal phenomenon", which could not be done by traditional model.Although Kuhn’s theory of paradigm is mainly used in natural science, especially in physical revolution, but it can also be applied in social science, such as politics, sociology, and administration. However, social science is different from natural science, the integration of Kuhn’s theory of paradigm can’t be flawless without being modified. Different from the natural science, the paradigm of social science, including administrative law, featuring in multi-level, multi context, and compatibility.As the scientific achievements of administrative democratization, negotiating administration has become a new paradigm different from traditional administration and administrative participation. First, negotiating administration featuring on equality, participation and consensus, which is different from traditional administration? Second, the theory of inter-subjectivity, negotiating democracy, governance and balance provides theoretical basis; change of state task, need of proper regulation for administrative discretion, and transformation of contemporary public administration provides a solid foundation; administrative legislation, administrative law enforcement, administrative relief provides a large amount of cases. Third, compared with the traditional administration, negotiating administration can not only resolve the plight of legitimacy, but also improve efficiency, which shows great advantage.A new theory would bring advance to a subject and be confronted with traditional ideas.In the face of negotiating administration,traditional administrative has already challenged it with its own principles. However, in the context of administrative nation, the principle of administrative right can not be on one’s discretion has already collapsed. In fact,it is the pursuit of multiple interests which makes negotiating administration necessary. It is undeniable that, there are limitations about the paradigm of negotiating administration, mainly embodied in the inequality of negotiating parties, the burden of negotiating and decline in public administration and fairness,which can be resolved by certain rules.A paradigm must be supported by systematic theory, which has to be learnt for truly understanding the meaning of a paradigm and using it as a tool in practice. As a new paradigm of administrative law, the elements of negotiating administration including the relationship of administrative law, legal status of participants, the administrative process, administrative methods, principles, administrative procedure, effectiveness, the applicable scope and links with traditional administration. The legal relationship of negotiating administration is built on equality and participation. The process of negotiating administration is a complex combination of mutual understanding, communication and compromise, especially emphasize equality, openness, integrity as principles, taking interests as the basic method. The procedure shall be focused on communicative rationality and tolerance on participants. Effectiveness of negotiating administration includes two aspects:internal effect, binding both sides, and external effect, which can be sued in court. Negotiating administration has its applying field, when it is unable to reach administrative goal, traditional methods have to be applied.Administrative law is different from country to country; the paradigm of negotiating administration must be based on China’s administrative ecology. The support from constitutional norms, political consultative system, failure for the ban of negotiating in administrative cases, negotiating orientation in Administrative Reconsideration Law and State Compensation all provide resources. The paradigm of negotiating administration in our country consists of changing mandatory methods, get rid of obstacles, reconstruct the system of hearing and strengthen the construction of civil society.The emergence of paradigm of negotiating administration will have a structural influence to China’s administrative law, which will improve the transformation of the thought, innovation of the theory, change of the system, and will promote China’s administration to "administrative republicanism".更多还原