【作者】 李琦；

【导师】 朱维究；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2005， 博士

【副题名】行政过程论的研究进路

【摘要】 行政行为效力论是行政法学的重要组成部分,而目前的研究仍尚显薄弱,研究方法单一,所得结论有待推敲。基于此种认识以及对行政行为特征的理性把握,本文提出引入行政过程论,以过程论的方法对行政行为效力问题进行再阐释,以期尽力把握行政行为效力的真义。 本文由以下六章组成: 第一章探讨提出行政过程论的旨归,即对传统行政法学理论特征的剖析。文章总结传统行政法学理论的四大特征:1.自由主义法治国家行政法论;2.行政权优越地位论;3.行政主体与行政相对人之内部关系、外部关系区分论;4.行政行为核心论。其中,自由主义法治国之行政法的宗旨在于最大限度保障个人自由权利,严格控制行政权范围,采行所谓“机械法治主义”。行政权的优越地位表现在行政主体的主导性和优益性,行政行为享有先定力和公定力。内部外部行政法律关系的区分则源于韦伯的理性官僚制理论,导致特别权力关系的封闭性,使公共行政拒绝权利诉求。 第二章探讨行政过程论针对传统行政法学而提出的回应和主张。针对自由主义法治国理论,行政过程论提倡社会福利生态法治国理念,主张自由基础上的民主、尊重个体权利的社会正义、超越形式主义的实质法治。针对行政权优越地位论,行政过程论提倡行政主体与相对人的平等理念。这种平等理念的树立,来自对国家理性有限性和行政权有限性的体认,是交往行动理论的启示,是对相对人地位再认识的结果,最终依赖平等理念和契约精神而得以实现。针对内部外部法律关系的区分论,行政过程论借鉴新公共管理的政府流程再造和行政组织结构再造思想,从行政组织由层级化向扁平化的转变趋势中得出了特别权力关系的一般化以及内部外部行政法律关系打通的结论。 第三章考察行政行为效力研究的方法论问题。行政行为中心主义存在诸多局限性:行政行为型式化使概念功能负担过重以致崩溃,型式化使法律控制时点难以灵活把握,给付行政时代过程重于结果以及行政行为中心论对行政相对人的行为未予关注。以上局限性的存在致使行政行为重要性逐渐丧失,因为现代行政的本来面目就是行政多样性的聚合,而行政行为作为诉讼通道的功能也被放弃。所以,行政过程论取代行政行为中心论就成为可能。从行政过程论的视角重新对行政行为进行反思,就会发现,行政行为既具有法律行为的原形式,又具有事实行为的原形式。行政行为既要接受法律行为的检验,又要接受事实行为的检验。而以行政过程论的方法研究行政行为的效力,就应当坚持动态论方法、整体论方法和阶段论方法。 第四章是对作出阶段行政行为效力的考察。行政行作出阶段的效力问题包括准更多还原

【Abstract】 The force theory of administrative action possesses a very important role in administrative jurisprudence. Due to thin research situation on this subject nowadays, reconsideration on administrative action force by use of administrative process theory is of practical and theoretical significance.This dissertation is composed of six chapters as follows:. Chapter one considers the features of traditional administrative jurisprudence, which include: l.liberalistic rule of law state; 2. superiority of administrative power; 3.distinction in legal relationship between inner and outsider administration; 4.the core role position of administration action.Chapter two discusses the response of administrative process theory towards traditional administrative jurisprudence. Administrative process theory claims social ecological welfare rule of law state, equality between administration and private person, abolishment of borderline in administration. Social ecological welfare rule of law requires democracy based on liberty, social justice respecting individual rights, substantive rule of law surpassing formalism. Equality between administration and private person is established according to the acknowledgment of state and administration limit, hint of communicative action theory, and review of legal position of the private person. Abolishment of borderline in administration comes from reengeneering of the public sector.Chapter three reviews the methodology of administrative action force research. Administrative process theory substitutes for the core role of administrative action, which requests to probe into administrative action force by use of dynamic method, wholeness method and step method.Chapter four discusses the force of administrative action in decision-making stage, including the force of preparing action, establishment of the administrative action, taking effect of the administrative action and invalidation of administrative action. Due to non-formalization of the preparing action, the force of preparing action should be decided in concrete condition. The establishment of administrative action is finished when thesubject with administrative power informs its powerful meaning to the outside person. Administrative action is taking effect when it is decided, informed, accepted or its attachment is completed. Invalidation of administrative law lies mainly in the standard and procedure of its identification.Chapter five discusses the force during the time of continuation. The force of continuation is the force without impact by defect. The binding force is the effect binding others with content, fact and reason. The force of enforcement is the protecting force which safeguards the realization of administration action.Chapter six reviews the force in dispute stage. The force with no dispute takes effect when relief time limit is over. If the dispute is put forward, administrative action has no force with no dispute and its enforcement must be delayed. During litigation, if the agency changes its action, the plaintiff may change its claim or continue to confirm the suit. When administrative action becomes certain, no change should be allowed. This is called the force without any change.更多还原