【作者】 王平；

【导师】 沈荣华；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 政治学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 公共权力可以分为政府管理权和“追究”政府管理权否定性责任的问责权。政府管理权(下称管理权)的否定性责任,又称为管理权因为没有正确履行第一性义务而应该承担的第二性义务,即管理权因为没有履行好“分内之事”而应该承担的相应“不利后果”。管理权应该法治化,否则,人民的消极社会权利得不到很好维护,积极社会权利得不到很好发展。管理权的法治化离不开问责权的催动。因为问责权的“分内之事”(即第一性义务)是指,当管理权滥用职权时,问责权应该根据法律迫使管理权承担相应的“不利后果”。显然,只有问责权依法履行自己的第一性义务,管理权才能得到持续的、有效的、牢靠的控制。事实上,问责权依法履行自己的第一性义务,即追究管理权滥用职权的“不利后果”,也意味着管理权的“分内之事”同时被明确。否则,问责权就无法裁判管理权是否履行好自己的职守。而管理权“分内之事”的被明确,又进一步意味着人民私权利得到制度化认可与保障。因此,问责权对整个社会走向法治化都具有不可忽略的重要性。然而,问责权也不是天使,它也有可能不正确履行自己的第一性义务。也就是说,问责权可能不作为导致管理权滥用成灾,或者错误作为导致管理权战战兢兢、怀有抱怨。因之,为问责权设置第二性义务便显得十分重要。问责权的第二性义务是指,当问责权滥用职权时,即没有依法追究管理权的否定性责任时,它也应该依法被追究相应的否定性责任、即依法承担相应的“不利后果”。也就是说,问责权也应该被“问责”。问责权被“问责”只能理解为问责权相互交叉问责,建立了一个问责权网状交叉问责循环系统。因为,单线条式的问责体系使得最后(也是最高的)一个问责权永远不受刚性制约。问责权网状交叉问责循环系统不仅使得问责权法治化(相互制约)有了本体论根据,而且,它使得问责权由此成为一个国家权力系统中的动力核心或说总枢纽。问责权法治化获得了价值论根据。也就是说,如果上述网状循环系统获得构建,问责权法治化就得到了保证,进而管理权法治化也就获得了恒久动力。换言之,问责权法治化某种程度上是自在自为的,而管理权法治化是需要问责权法治化来推动的。因此,抓住了问责权法治化,特别是抓住了建立问责权网状交叉问责循环系统,也就抓住了建设法治社会的根本。反过来也成立,一个社会法治化的破碎也必然从这个网状交叉问责循环系统的破碎开始。网状交叉问责循环系统的建立还意味着民主社会的到来。因为人民问责权是问责权中极为重要的一极,只有人民问责权活跃起来,网状循环系统才会生生不息的运行下去。相反,人民问责权的式微往往宣告了这个循环系统的破产。结果,政府内部的党政问责权(即同体问责权)作为尚方宝剑一枝独大,它马上就暴露出权力的固有缺陷。许多时候,它会和管理权同流合污,管理权失去了控制便如出笼猛虎肆意伤害人民。少些时候,它可能在民本思想和道德感的驱使下剑指政府管理权滥用,造福人民;但这种情况于人民来说可遇不可求。有鉴于此,本文对问责权法治化进行研究。从整体上而言,这种研究分为两个部分:一是,对问责权法治化展开规范研究,即在解读法治主义范式基础上,描述问责权法治化的理想模式(以当代中国为背景)。这里的“化”当理解为“实现了的状态”。二是,对当代中国的问责权法治化展开实践研究,即在问责权法治化理想模式的基础上,挖掘当代中国问责权法治化的多维梗阻,并积极探寻排除这些梗阻的现实路径。这里的“化”当理解为“努力推进、积极演化”。具体来说,本文按照前后承接的关系一共分为六个部分:导论。主要探讨研究问责权法治化的理据。第一章:法治主义范式的当代理解。主要从“良法治理”和“普遍守法”两个层面对法治主义范式的当代内涵予以解读。“良法治理”意味着通过完备的法制,尊重和保护私权利、规制公共权力。私权利包括消极社会权利和积极社会权利,对二者予以恰当的制度安排十分重要。在现代民主社会,本体论意义上的公共权力主要包括抽象人民主权与具体人民主权,对二者分别予以有效规制也十分重要。“普遍守法”意味着私权利和公共权力都遵守“良法”规定。它包括内在守法与外在守法。外在守法相对于内在守法,意义更为深远。第二章:问责权法治化的理想模式。主要运用法治主义范式锻造问责权。它从问责权的法治化规定和法治化制约两个层面展开分析。问责权的法治化规定是指明晰问责权的“分内之事”和“分内权能”。“分内之事”是指问责权的“职守”,“分内权能”是指问责权的“职权”,只有二者清晰明了,问责权的行使才会有规有矩。问责权的法治化制约是指运用外在的、内在的控制,使得问责权严守职守,不敢越雷池半步。显然,问责权的法治化规定主要与“良法治理”相联系;问责权的法治化制约与“普遍守法”相联系。问责权法治化的理想模式蕴含着形式要件、精神要件和实质要件。第三章:问责权法治化的多维梗阻。主要基于问责权的规定和制约两个层面分析当代中国问责权走向法治化的多维困阻。首先,当代中国存在问责权“规定性”不足的缺陷。一方面,各种问责权呈现“职守”模糊情形;另一方面,与人民问责权、代议机关问责权“职权”匮乏相对应,党政机关问责权表现出“职权”过剩现象。其次,当代中国存在问责权“制约性”缺失的缺陷。一是,由于缺乏公民精神,人民问责权内在制约性不足;二是,由于人民问责权的“职权匮乏”,使得代议机关问责权缺乏外在制约;三是,由于人民问责权和代议机关问责权的“职权匮乏”,使得党政机关问责权也缺乏外在制约性;四是,由于缺乏内在守法精神,代议机关问责权、党政机关问责权的内在制约性不足。在这些问题当中,最重要的是因为人民问责权和代议机关问责权的“职权匮乏”,导致属于外在制约方面的问责权网状交叉问责循环系统没有建立起来。相应的,可以用问责权法治化形式要件的不足、精神要件的脱离、实质要件的匮乏来对当代中国问责权法治化的多维梗阻做一总体评价。第四章:建构问责权网状交叉问责循环系统的路径。主要从政治、经济、文化三个层面探寻建立该系统的现实途径。首先,完善人民代表大会制度是建立上述问责循环系统的关键。完善人民代表大会制度的基本方向是实现镜像论代议制与委托代理论代议制的有机统一。其次,发展社会主义市场经济是建立上述循环系统的基础。经济基础决定政治上层建筑,人民问责权只能建立在“政治解放”基础上,而后者则只能建立在市场经济和市民社会充分发展基础上。因为,市民社会的发达使得契约治理社会取代身份治理社会,使得权利本位取代义务本位,使得抽象人民主权最终只能与消极社会权利相结合,具体人民主权与积极社会权利相结合。再次,发展规则性文化是建立上述问责循环系统的核心。文化作为思想上层建筑,对政治上层建筑的发展起到深刻影响作用。具体说来,发展健康的规则性文化,有助于现代公民精神(主体意识和公共意识的统一)的培育,有助于人民问责权的强盛,从而有助于问责权网状交叉问责循环系统的建立。结论:主要概括出本文的基本结论,并提出进一步思考的方向。更多还原

【Abstract】 Public power can be divided into two: government administrative power and the power to ask government for accountability of negative responsibility. The negative responsibility of government administrative power (simplified as administrative power in this paper) is the consequent and secondary duties a government must undertake for failure in fulfilling its primary duties, namely the“negative consequences”a government should suffer because of bad performance in its“legitimate duties”.The administrative power should be institutionalized and ruled by law, otherwise, the passive social rights of the ruled are not well protected and active ones not well promoted. The legitimization of administrative power is inseparable from the development of accountability power, for, the“legitimate duties”of administrative power refer to that when administrative power abuses accountability power shall force the administrative power to take the corresponding“negative consequences”. At the same time, when“legitimate duties”are made clear, chances are that rights of the ruled are institutionalized and protected. Hence, power to ask for accountability is of critical importance to a society’s evolution towards“rule by law”.Yet, accountability power is no angel. As administrative power, it may not fulfill its duties lawfully, i.e. accountability power may cause the abuse of administrative power because of its omission of duties, or, violate administrative power because of its misdeeds.Hence, setting a secondary duty for accountability power is necessary. The secondary duty of accountability power refers to that when accountability power abuses, namely does not persecute administrative power under the rule of law, itself should be persecuted for its negative responsibilities, namely suffer the“negative consequences”according to laws. In other words, the accountability power should also be asked for accountability. When accountability power is asked for accountability, it should only be cross-accountability. A system of network-like cross-accountability should be established, because one-way accountability power system will bring the last (and supreme) accountability under no control.A cross-accountability power system not only makes the juridification of accountability power (mutual restraint) self-proved, it also makes the accountability power a nation’s power nucleus and HUB of power, hence providing values for juridification of accountability power. In other words, if the above-mentioned network-like system of accountability power is established, accountability power is secured to be ruled by law and administrative power is provided with permanent dynamics. Viewed from another aspect, the juridification of accountability power is self-done, but lawfulness of administrative power shall be pushed by the juridification of accountability power. So, to put accountability power under the rule of law, esp. to establish a network of accountability power system is the key and hardcore of establishing a society ruled by law. It’s also true the other way around: the breakdown of a society ruled by law begins from the breakdown of its accountability power system.The network-like cross-accountability power system also predicts a democratic vision. The accountability of the ruled is a critical pole in accountability power system. Only when accountability activities of the ruled prevail can the network of cross-accountability survive. On the other hand, the decaying of accountability power from the ruled will soon announce the bankruptcy of such an accountability system. The consequences are clear: the accountability from the ruling political party (which belongs to self-accountability) will expand as a supreme power and displays the evil of all uncontrolled power. On many occasions, it will be the accomplice of administrative power and release the monster of administrative power from the cage. On fewer occasions, it may, under the drive of morality and traditional parole-centered thoughts, point its supervision power to the administrative power. Yet such blessings cannot be counted on.For the above-mentioned reasons, this thesis paper is a research conducted on the juridification of accountability powers. As a whole, this study is divided into two parts: First, accountability power are put in normative research, that is based on the interpretation of the rule of law paradigm to describe the ideal legitimization of accountability power model or desirable government power situation in the rule of law of vision (the contemporary Chinese society as the background). Here "legitimization" should be understood as "realization." Second, there’s a following empirical research on the practice of government accountability power in contemporary Chinese society, namely, research on government accountability power in the ideal model, based on the excavation in contemporary China government accountability power in multi-dimensional obstruction to actively explore the removal of these obstructions the real path. Here "legitimization" should be understood as "efforts to promote the positive evolution."Specifically, this paper is divided into six parts according to the process of induction:Introduction part: mainly the discussion of the reasons and theoretical origins for the juridification of accountability power.Chapter I: the contemporary understanding of the rule of law paradigm. Mainly it interpreted the meaning from the two levels of the rule of law paradigm: "good law governance" and the "universal law-abiding". "Good law governance" means the rule of law through comprehensive, that private power are respected and protected, and the public authority to be regulated. Private rights include the passive and active social rights. In modern democratic society, ontological sense of the public power includes abstract and concrete idea of the“people”. People’s sovereignty to be effectively regulated is also very important. "Universal law-abiding" means that all private power and public authority should comply with "good law" requirement. It includes internal and external law-abiding and external law-abiding. Internal law-abiding is more profound and external law-abiding.Chapter II : a desirable vision of the legitimization of accountability power. Mainly through the rule of law paradigm this part forges accountability power, it analyzes two aspects of constraints from the aspects of regulation and interference. Accountability power refers to the clarity of the provisions of the right of accountability, "obligatory duties" and "obligatory administrative power."“Obligatory duties”refer to the legitimate“duties”of government accountability power, and“obligatory administrative power”refers to the legitimate“power”of government. Only when the two are clear, government accountability power exercise will practice right. Regulation of government accountability power refers to the use of external constraints, internal control, making government the right to strict accountability of duty and dare not deviate. Obviously, government accountability power and the "good laws and governance" are linked; government accountability power constraints and the "general law" are also linked.Chapter III: the multi-dimensional obstruction of government accountability power . This chapter is mainly based on government accountability and the requirements and constraints analysis of two aspects of contemporary Chinese government accountability power towards a multi-dimensional obstruction. First, there is existence of contemporary Chinese government accountability power "provisions" that has many defects. (1) People’s accountability power are vague, correspondingly, representative bodies, the ruling party and the accountability of the executive power are also presented vaguely; (2) The power of people’s government accountability power are weakening; (3) The power of representative institutions also lack government accountability power. Secondly, the existence of contemporary Chinese Government Accountability power "conditionality" has defects. (1) Due to a lack of civic spirit, the people’s government accountability power within the constraints are insufficient; (2) Since the power of the people’s accountability power and representative institutions’accountability authority "lacks power," making the party and government branches short of external accountability constraints. At the same time, the lack of internal law-abiding spirit of the ruling party and government branches makes accountability inadequate. Among these issues, the most important is that the people’s right of government accountability power and representative institutions’right of accountability "lack competence", leading to that accountability and cross-accountability activities did not really set up a circulatory system.Chapter IV: the construction and realization of accountability power. This chapter discusses mainly from three levels of accountability: political, economic, cultural level, to explore the establishment of circulatory network-like accountability power system. First of all, to improve the people’s congress system is the key to the establishment of the desirable accountability system. To improve the people’s representative system is to achieve the basic direction of the mirror on the representative with the commission on behalf of the representative in a theoretically organic unity . Second, the development of the socialist market economy is built on accountability and the basis for cross accountability circulatory system. The economic base determines the political superstructure. Democratic accountability activities can only be built on the "political emancipation" basis, while the latter can only be built in a full developed market economy and civil society. Well-developed civil society makes the social contract replace the identity society, allowing power to replace obligations, and the abstract sovereignty can only be combined with the negative social power, specifically the power of the people’s sovereignty and positive social integration. Third, the development of a rational regulative political culture is the key to establish the circulatory cross-accountability system. Culture as an ideological superstructure, develops with relative independence, and its political superstructure, plays a profound influence on it. Specifically, to develop a healthy regulative culture benefits the cultivation of the modern civic spirit (the unity of power consciousness and public awareness), and also helps people’s accountability prosperity, hence beneficial to the establishment of a circulatory cross accountability system.Conclusions and reflection section : this part summarized the three main conclusions and provided new methodology to the issue.更多还原