行政诉讼调解问题研究

【作者】 杨丽；

【导师】 姚宪弟；

【作者基本信息】 太原科技大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 在我国的行政诉讼中,因为一直强调“公权力的不可让渡性”,而禁止运用调解方式解决行政案件(行政赔偿诉讼除外)。然而在司法实践中,行政案件的变相调解情况则司空见惯,导致行政案件的低立案率和高撤诉率,在一定程度上削弱了行政机关和法律的权威。面对这种矛盾的现状,对于在行政诉讼中到底应否引入调解制度,我国学术界众说纷纭。虽然目前肯定说占据了主流学说地位,但是笔者认为,肯定说仅仅对否定说的理由作了针对性的驳斥,其理由也主要局限于“公权力不可处分说并不严谨”或“行政诉讼调解应与民事诉讼与刑事自诉中的调解一样不可避免”等等。肯定说并没有对行政诉讼调解制度自身的理论基础进行深入研究,并没有发现行政诉讼调解的理论要害问题。通过比较研究法、文献分析法和法社会学等方法对我国行政诉讼应当引入调解制度进行深入剖析,以寻求行政诉讼调解的理论支撑。第一,从域外适用的行政诉讼调解制度实践看,德国的行政诉讼和解制度,法国的调解专员制度以及我国台湾地区的和解制度都成功地说明,在行政诉讼中纳入调解制度是可行的。而国外辩诉交易的广泛运用,更是为公权力与私权利之间的交融提供了成功的范例。第二,从宪法学的角度看,由于一切权力都是源于公民权利,决定了行政机关应当本着服务人民的思想行使行政权力,当行政机关与相对人发生冲突时也应当本着服务人民的思想,自觉与行政相对人协商处理。第三,从行政法的角度看,随着世界经济一体化进程的加快,摒弃传统政府模式,回归服务型政府已成为我国行政改革的大势所趋。由此,在发生行政争议时,我们不应当一味地强调“公权力不可处分”,行政机关应当尊重行政相对人,认真倾听行政相对人的意见,本着“为民服务”的原则与相对人和平处理争议。另外,为了适应复杂多变的社会现实并保持法的相对稳定性,立法总是比较原则的,这些就为行政主体的自由裁量留下了很大空间。在这种空间范围内,行政主体无疑是可以与相对人达成调解合意的。第四,从行政诉讼法的角度看,作为纠纷解决方式之一的调解制度和诉讼制度一样都可以应用在解决行政争议当中,而多元化纠纷解决机制的国际化潮流,更是为我国引入行政诉讼调解提供有力的支撑。第五,中国长久以来固有的“和谐”思想以及当代我国的国情决定了用协调方式来解决行政争议这样的人民内部矛盾是具有法社会学基础的。第六,从法经济学的角度看,行政诉讼调解可以减少诉讼成本,使当事人可以通过最低的成本获得最大的收益。因此,结合我国的实际情况,应当在我国建立一套行政诉讼的有限调解制度。综上所述,那种以“公权力不可让渡”完全排斥行政诉讼调解的观点显然是极其武断的。以调解方式来解决行政争议不仅是可行的,而且是必要的。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the Administrative Litigation of China, the use of mediation to resolve administrative cases (except for administrative compensation proceedings) have been prohibited, because”the non-transferable public power" has been the emphasized. However, in judicial practice, the situation of covert mediation of administrative cases is not uncommon form. It has been to lead to the low rate of administrative cases registered and the high rate of administrative cases dropped and has weakened the executive and legal authority to a certain extent.Faced with this contradiction, the academic community in our country has several views about introducing the System of Conciliation into the Administrative Cases.Although that the doctrine of positive has occupied the status of the mainstream theory, but I think that the doctrine of positive has only refuted the reasons on the grounds and the reasons are mainly confined to "the doctrine of unauthorized disposal of public power is not rigorous " or "the mediation in Administrative Cases is inevitable like conciliation proceedings in the civil and criminal prosecution "and so on. I am sure that the doctrine of positive has not made further research of the own theoretical basis of administrative litigation mediation system, and there is no clear theory about the crucial question of administrative litigation mediation.Through comparative method, literature analytic method and sociology of law, this paper made an in depth discussion of introducing mediation system into Administrative Litigation in china in order to find the theory basis of that. First of all, we have investigated the extraterritorial practice of the administrative Litigation mediation system. The German system of administrative litigation settlement, the French system of the conciliation Commissioner and the reconciliation system of the Taiwan region in our country have successfully illustrated that Administrative Litigation mediation system is feasible. At the meantime, with the widespread use of plea bargaining in overseas, it also provides a successful sample of the confluent for the private rights and the public power.Second, from the standpoint of the constitution, when there is a conflict between the executive authorities and the people relative, the executive should be consciously in consultation with the people, because all the powers are derived from the civil rights and the decisions of the executive should be thought to serve the people in the exercise of executive power. Once again, from the perspective of administrative law, return of service-oriented government administration reform has become a trend in our country, with speeding up the world economy integration process and abandoning the traditional model of government. Therefore, in the event of a administrative dispute, we should not be focusing on "public authority can not be punished," At the meantime, the executive authorities should respect the administrative relative person, and listen carefully to the views of the relative administration, and deal the dispute peacefully with the spirit of "serving the people". In addition, in order to meet the complex and ever-changing social realities and to maintain the relative stability of law, legislation is always the principled. Therefore, there is a lot of room to be left for the freedom discretion of the main administration. At this spatial scale, it is sure that the main administration can get a relatively satisfactory mediation with the administrative relative person.Fourth, from the perspective of the Administrative Procedure Law, mediation system, as one of the ways to resolve the dispute can be applied to resolve the dispute among the administration as the same as the proceedings system. The diversification trend of international dispute settlement mechanism also provides strong support for the introduction of administrative proceedings mediation of our country.Fifth, "harmony" in which China has long been inherent, as well as the contemporary situation of our country, is a Sociology foundation of using a coordinated approach to settle the internal contradictions among the people.Sixth, from the Law and Economics point of view, the administrative proceedings mediation could reduce litigation costs; the parties would pay the lowest cost to maximize profits.Finally, with the combination of the actual situation, our country should set up a set of limited mediation system of administrative proceedings.To sum up, the complete rejection of the administrative proceedings mediation opinion because of "public authority inalienable" is extremely arbitrary. Using conciliation to resolve administration disputes is not only feasible but also necessary.更多还原