【作者】 尹华容；

【导师】 胡肖华；

【作者基本信息】 湘潭大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 任何制度的正当性必须来自社会,制度需求决定制度供给。当前中国行政诉讼制度的步履维艰有深层次的宪法原因,这决定了从行政诉讼迈向宪法诉讼是一种必然。在审慎立法的基础上,司法之于法治的作用至为关键,“立法中心主义”有必要向“司法中心主义”偏转。通过司法的正义之路绕不过宪法诉讼之门,宪法诉讼是司法中心主义与司法宪政主义发展的逻辑结果。宪法诉讼制度是由司法机关依照司法程序审查、确认法律的违宪与否并使违宪的法律失去效力的一种制度。宪法诉讼作为一种解决宪法争议的诉讼形态,基本特征就在于它的司法性、事后性、争议的客观存在性。宪法诉讼制度的正当性有主客观两个维度,主观维度是一种基于经验主义的正当性,即宪法诉讼之正当性来源于人民的同意或人民的政治认同;客观维度是一种基于规范主义的正当性,即宪法诉讼之正当性来源于某种客观的正义标准或高级法理念。从主观方面而论,尽管宪法诉讼具有反民主之表象,似乎由非民选的法官判断人民代表的意志是否符合宪法不具备民主正当性,但是基于二元民主理论、精英民主理论、共和民主理论,宪法诉讼制度具有正当性。因为,第一,法院是依宪法时刻形成的宪法决定来审查、裁判由民意代表依据一般立法程序即可作成的“一般立法”,当具有更高的民主正当性;第二,精英民主理论认为,民主就是人民选择精英来进行统治,宪法诉讼之正当实乃基于被视为精英的法官和人民之间的相互承认。第三,宪法诉讼是共和主义民主的具体体现,充分地体现了“共”与“和”的思想以及天下为公的理念。对宪法诉讼正当性的客观维度的论证植根于特定的历史情境当中。没有共同体的自由意味着疯狂,没有自由的共同体意味着奴役。因宪法诉讼机制的存在,民众得以诉讼的方式经常性地参与国家政治生活,从而不仅保障并拓展了公民的基本权利与自由,而且促进了共同体的健康发展。宪法诉讼可以解决代表不同民众的民意代表之间的纠纷,法院作为第三方裁判体现了“任何人不得做自己的法官”这一程序正义的基本内涵。同时,宪法作为现代国家的根本大法,已经衍化为“正义的化身”,宪法诉讼的正当性就在于坚持原旨主义解释的法院在宪法诉讼中的裁判依据就是象征着“正义”的宪法文本。对于何以由法院解释高级法,最小危险部门理论、司法最低限度主义为此提供了辩护。司法权是消极权、判断权,且法院恪守司法最低限度主义,在裁判时只须解决当下的个案,至于与案件相关的其它问题与争点,尽量不做决定,因而法院最适合于充当某些持久性价值的宣示者和守护者。在法律实践层面,宪法诉讼的受案范围、审查标准及其判决形式为宪法诉讼正当性难题的破解提供了技术路径。在现行政法体制下,中国宪法进入诉讼可以通过合宪性解释、拒绝适用违宪之法、发挥宪法的第三人效力等具体路径。更多还原

【Abstract】 The legitimacy of any system must originate from society, and the demand for system decides the supply of system. At present, the difficult situation of administrative litigation system in China has in-depth constitutional causes, which determines it is inevitable for administrative litigation to stride into constitutional litigation. On the basis of prudent legislation, justice is of vital importance to rule of law, and it is necessary for legislation centralism to deviate to justice centralism. The road of justice to judicature can not bypass the gateway of constitutional litigation, and constitutional litigation is the logic result of the development of justice centralism and judicial constitutionalism.Constitutional litigation is a system that the judicial authority reviews and determines whether the law is unconstitutional and invalidates the unconstitutional law in accordance with judicial procedure. As a litigation form of resolving constitutional disputes, constitutional litigation system is characterized by its judiciary nature, ex post nature and objectivity of disputes.Legitimacy of constitutional litigation system has two dimensions, which are subjective dimension and objective dimension. The subject dimension is a kind of legitimacy based on empiricism, in the sense of legitimacy of constitutional litigation originates from people’s consent or political identification. The objective dimension is a kind of legitimacy based on normativism, that is, the legitimacy of constitutional litigation comes from certain objective standards of justice or ideas of superior law.As for the subjective aspect, it seems that constitutional litigation is anti-democratic and that it lacks democratic legitimacy allowing jurists to judge whether the will of people’s representatives is in accordance with constitution. However, constitutional procedure system is justified on the theory of dual democracy, elite democracy and republican democracy. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, the applicable law by the court is the "general legislation" including the constitutional judgment, award, and the options of the representatives of the people. Secondly, according to elite democracy theory, democracy is the rule of elites chosen by people, so justification of constitutional procedure system is based on mutual recognition between judges regarded as elites and people. Last but not least, constitutional litigation is the embodiment of republicanism, which fully reflects the idea of "common" and "harmony" and the doctrine of the state belonging to people. The demonstration of objective standard in legitimacy of constitutional procedure is deeply rooted in special historical situations. Freedom without community means crazy while community without freedom means slavery. With constitutional litigation system, people are able to participate in political activities regularly through litigation, which not only safeguards and widens civilian’s basic rights and freedom, but also promotes the sound development of community. Constitutional litigation can resolve disputes among people’s representatives who represent different people. As the third neutral party, the court embodies the basic connotation that no one can be his own judge. Meanwhile, as the fundamental law in modern countries, constitution has evolved into "the incarnation of justice" and legitimacy of constitutional litigation lies in insisting that the basic of judgment for courts in constitution procedure is the constitutional text which is the symbol of "justice".With regard to why superior law is explained by the court, the theory of minimum danger branch and minimum judicial limit provide justification. The judicial power is a negative power and adjudicative power. The court abides by minimum judicial limit and only needs to resolve the case in hand but not issues or points relevant to the case. Therefore, the court is the most suitable announcer and protector of certain lasting values.From the perspective of legal practice, the scope, review criteria and judgment forms of constitutional litigation provide technical solutions for resolving the puzzlement of legitimacy of constitutional litigation. Under the existing political-legal system, Chinese constitution can enter into litigation by constitutional interpretation, rejecting unconstitutional law, and developing the third party effect of constitution and so on.更多还原