行政诉讼判决研究

【作者】 梁凤云；

【导师】 张树义；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 宪法与行政法学， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 行政诉讼判决制度是行政诉讼法制度中最关键、最重要的部分,行政诉讼法中所有的规定都是围绕能够作出公正、合法和合理的判决展开的。本文针对的研究对象是现行的行政诉讼判决制度,本文将就行政诉讼法关于行政判决的制度进行实证讨论,并在实证研究的基础上提出一种相对明晰的方法论。将判决制度作为研究对象有别于学术界盛行的理论架构方法。从实证法学的角度研究行政诉讼判决,包含了近年来我对判决制度整体性的一些初步的看法。根据行政诉讼判决制度整体性研究的分析理路,判决制度之源流、民事判决制度之展延、行政诉讼判决制度之衍变,均在观察的范围之内。在本文中将就行政诉讼判决制度这个关键节点证实有关行政诉讼术语和理念,打通行政诉讼法学领域中几个极为重要的领域。通过对行政诉讼判决制度的研究用较为规范的法学术语去证实一些我们以为已经证明,但实际上远未证明的现象。本论文研究的目的在于深入研究我国行政诉讼判决作为客观判决的基本性质,厘清基于诉讼类型的各类行政诉讼判决的适法条件以及裁判基准时,明确行政诉讼判决在建构新型行政诉讼法制度的基础作用,进一步推进中国行政诉讼制度的科学化。本论文在研究方法上,遵循了以下基本理路:一是逻辑基础和实证理论的调适与凝合。根据行政诉讼判决“是什么”和“应当是什么”的逻辑结构,行政诉讼判决可以划分为事实判断的实证行政诉讼判决和关于价值判断的规范行政诉讼判决。本文既关注现有的法律规定,又关注法律外实际的运作状况;既探讨行政诉讼判决在国外已经形成的规范判断,又探讨行政诉讼判决在我国的实际状况;既探讨行政诉讼判决中已形成制度的部分,也涉及仍未制度化的行政诉讼判决部分。二是理论假设与分析工具的连接与互证。即将行政诉讼判决研究作为行政诉讼法的一部分,整个地放入宪政背景及法治环境中去考究。宪政背景以及法治精神本身就是一种预测。行政诉讼法学的基础是宪政理论,不探寻宪政理论无法达致行政诉讼法学的真正理解。经验观察则是从中国的现实角度去批判、引证在理论预测中所设置的焦点假设。三是通过民事、刑事诉讼判决提供给行政诉讼判决研究乃至行政诉讼法学的自省和创新。民事诉讼和刑事诉讼目前已经成为基本上可以自足的科学体系,对于一些问题的解决可以通过现有的智识资源获得解决。行政诉讼制度则不同,大量实务问题无法从现有的知识框架内获得解决。因此,通过借鉴民事诉讼和刑事诉讼的智识资源补足行政诉讼制度无法自足的缺憾,成为本文关注的一个基本方向。四是外部观察和内部观察,即从行政诉讼法学外部观察行政诉讼法学整体。外部观察是指以行政诉讼法外部环境作为研究范围的方法。行政诉讼法由于不能成为自足法律体系的考量,必须贯通与其他学科的联系渠道。如政治学中的国家权力构建、国家理论等等研究成果为我们提供了多角度的视角。这种视角是重塑行政诉讼法基础的重要手法。本论文研究的结论围绕中国的行政诉讼判决制度的客观性质展开。中国的行政诉讼制度的客观性质在司法实践中展现出积极和消极的两面。在积极方面,体现了法院对实质法治的贯彻,在消极方面则体现为忽视行政纠纷的解决。中国行政诉讼判决制度应当继续坚持客观判决和主观判决的两相结合。在具体的法律层更多还原

【Abstract】 Administrative litigant judgment system (ALJS) is the most important key part of the administrative litigant law system. All the rules of the administrative litigant law serve for the fair, legal and reasonable decisions. This thesis studies the present ALJS and will discuss about the administrative litigant system of the administrative litigant law demonstratively. The thesis will put forward a relatively transparent methodology base on the demonstration research. To make the decision system to be the object for research is different from the theory frame method prevails in academe. To study administrative litigant judgment from the sight of the demonstrative law includes my basic opinions about the holistic of judgment system in recent years. According to the holistic research analysis method of the ALJS, the origin of the judgment system, the extending of the civil judgment system, the evolvement of the ALJS are all included in the research scope. This thesis will connects some very important areas of the administrative litigant law and prove the jargon and the theory of administrative litigation by the key of ALJS, and use some comparatively normative ways to prove some phenomenon that we thought we had proved but indeed not by way of ALJS study. The purpose of this thesis is to lucubrate the essential character of China’s ALJS as the objective judgment, to clarify the legitimacy condition and judgment benchmark occasion of all layers of ALJ based on the suit types, to define the basic effective of the ALJ when constructing the new type ALJS and to promote the scientific progress of China’s ALS.This paper followed the following essential ways on research method: the first is the cooperation and coherence of the logic base and the demonstrative theory. According to the“what”and“should”logic system of the ALJ, the ALJ can be divided into the demonstrative ALJ depend on reality and the normative ALJ depend on value. This paper concerned on both active rules of the law and the actual action out laws. It discussed both the normative judge of the ALJ formed overseas and the reality of the ALJ in China. It also discussed about the already formed part and the still in disputed part of the ALJ. The second is the connection and the mutual prove of theory assumption and analysis tools. That is to say, I will take the ALJ research as a part of the ALL and study that with the background of constitution and policy along with the law condition.更多还原